https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91187 Exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was available where the goods manufactured were component parts and not the branded final product itself. The CEGAT held that denial of exemption required the specified goods to bear another person's brand name or trade name; here, the respondents made M.S. boxes and covers for chokes, not complete chokes. Since trade notices recognised that labels and similar items bearing another's name could still qualify when they were not the branded goods themselves, the benefit could not be refused merely because the components were supplied for use in chokes. The respondents were therefore entitled to the exemption, and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Tue, 26 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:15:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91187 Exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was available where the goods manufactured were component parts and not the branded final product itself. The CEGAT held that denial of exemption required the specified goods to bear another person's brand name or trade name; here, the respondents made M.S. boxes and covers for chokes, not complete chokes. Since trade notices recognised that labels and similar items bearing another's name could still qualify when they were not the branded goods themselves, the benefit could not be refused merely because the components were supplied for use in chokes. The respondents were therefore entitled to the exemption, and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 26 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91187