https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90497 Exemption under Notification No. 175/86 is not denied merely because the buyer's brand name appears on cartons supplied by the buyer, where the brand is not affixed on the goods themselves and the manufacturer's own name is more prominent. Paragraph 7, inserted by Notification No. 223/87, applies only when the manufacturer affixes another person's brand name or trade name on the manufactured goods, so the disqualification did not arise on these facts. The basis for invoking Rule 9(2) also failed because there was no clandestine removal or unauthorized clearance to sustain the demand. The exemption remained available and the demand and penalty were not sustainable. en-us Wed, 10 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Oct 2011 17:28:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90497 Exemption under Notification No. 175/86 is not denied merely because the buyer's brand name appears on cartons supplied by the buyer, where the brand is not affixed on the goods themselves and the manufacturer's own name is more prominent. Paragraph 7, inserted by Notification No. 223/87, applies only when the manufacturer affixes another person's brand name or trade name on the manufactured goods, so the disqualification did not arise on these facts. The basis for invoking Rule 9(2) also failed because there was no clandestine removal or unauthorized clearance to sustain the demand. The exemption remained available and the demand and penalty were not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=90497