https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91819 Denial of small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86 depended on whether the brand name "CITRA" fell within the exclusion in para (7), which in turn required a clear factual finding on brand ownership. The record did not establish whose brand name it was, and the burden to show that the assessee was hit by the exclusion lay on the Revenue. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for verification of the brand name claim and fresh adjudication after giving a personal hearing. en-us Thu, 20 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:59:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91819 Denial of small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86 depended on whether the brand name "CITRA" fell within the exclusion in para (7), which in turn required a clear factual finding on brand ownership. The record did not establish whose brand name it was, and the burden to show that the assessee was hit by the exclusion lay on the Revenue. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for verification of the brand name claim and fresh adjudication after giving a personal hearing. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 20 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91819