https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88517 Concessional duty under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. is denied under paragraph 7 only when the manufacturer uses the brand name of another person who is not eligible for the exemption. Where the brand name owners were registered small scale industrial units and themselves qualified for the benefit, the exemption could not be refused merely because another user of the same brand name had clearances above the prescribed limit. The Department had not shown that the brand name owners were ineligible, and turnover could not be clubbed on that basis. The benefit of the notification was therefore available and denial of the concessional rate was unjustified. en-us Fri, 23 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Sep 2011 14:26:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88517 Concessional duty under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. is denied under paragraph 7 only when the manufacturer uses the brand name of another person who is not eligible for the exemption. Where the brand name owners were registered small scale industrial units and themselves qualified for the benefit, the exemption could not be refused merely because another user of the same brand name had clearances above the prescribed limit. The Department had not shown that the brand name owners were ineligible, and turnover could not be clubbed on that basis. The benefit of the notification was therefore available and denial of the concessional rate was unjustified. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 23 Jan 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88517