https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89375 Exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. could not be denied on the exclusion clause without first proving that the brand name owner was ineligible. The Revenue relied on paragraph 7 but produced no evidence that the brand name owner exceeded the small scale industry limit or otherwise fell outside the notification; the appellants' balance-sheet material supported eligibility by showing clearances within the prescribed limit. Since the initial burden to bring the case within the exclusion rested on the Revenue and was not discharged, the exemption was upheld. en-us Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:24:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89375 Exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. could not be denied on the exclusion clause without first proving that the brand name owner was ineligible. The Revenue relied on paragraph 7 but produced no evidence that the brand name owner exceeded the small scale industry limit or otherwise fell outside the notification; the appellants' balance-sheet material supported eligibility by showing clearances within the prescribed limit. Since the initial burden to bring the case within the exclusion rested on the Revenue and was not discharged, the exemption was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 23 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89375