https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92027 Goods cleared under a bona fide understanding of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., supported by departmental circular guidance, were treated as attracting the brand-name restriction, but confiscation was not warranted in the circumstances. The supplier's failure to follow Chapter X procedure mitigated the penal consequences, so the redemption fine and penalty were set aside. The duty liability, however, remained unaffected and continued to subsist, with recovery still available if the goods were used and Modvat credit, where otherwise admissible, could be claimed separately. en-us Thu, 23 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Oct 2011 11:02:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92027 Goods cleared under a bona fide understanding of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., supported by departmental circular guidance, were treated as attracting the brand-name restriction, but confiscation was not warranted in the circumstances. The supplier's failure to follow Chapter X procedure mitigated the penal consequences, so the redemption fine and penalty were set aside. The duty liability, however, remained unaffected and continued to subsist, with recovery still available if the goods were used and Modvat credit, where otherwise admissible, could be claimed separately. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 23 Apr 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92027