https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88574 Notification No. 175/86 was held not to deny SSI exemption merely because medicines were manufactured on behalf of loan licensees who themselves did not hold SSI certificates; the job worker remained the manufacturer for excise purposes, so the absence of SSI status with the loan licensees did not by itself defeat exemption. The Collector also could not sustain denial on the basis of brand-name use, because that objection was not raised in the reference under Section 35E(4) and was outside the scope before him. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded. en-us Mon, 09 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:14:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88574 Notification No. 175/86 was held not to deny SSI exemption merely because medicines were manufactured on behalf of loan licensees who themselves did not hold SSI certificates; the job worker remained the manufacturer for excise purposes, so the absence of SSI status with the loan licensees did not by itself defeat exemption. The Collector also could not sustain denial on the basis of brand-name use, because that objection was not raised in the reference under Section 35E(4) and was outside the scope before him. The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 09 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=88574