https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93832 Entitlement to Notification No. 175/86 depended on the aggregate value of clearances in the preceding financial year, and para 3 permitted exclusion of branded goods manufactured for another person. The appellants failed to disclose in their classification list or reply to the show cause notice that they had manufactured branded goods for a third party, and produced no contemporaneous evidence before the adjudicating authority to support that claim. Their own declaration stated that they did not manufacture branded goods. Later letters and gate passes were therefore treated as unreliable and as an afterthought, so the value of branded goods could not be excluded and denial of the notification benefit was upheld. en-us Tue, 29 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Nov 2011 12:13:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93832 Entitlement to Notification No. 175/86 depended on the aggregate value of clearances in the preceding financial year, and para 3 permitted exclusion of branded goods manufactured for another person. The appellants failed to disclose in their classification list or reply to the show cause notice that they had manufactured branded goods for a third party, and produced no contemporaneous evidence before the adjudicating authority to support that claim. Their own declaration stated that they did not manufacture branded goods. Later letters and gate passes were therefore treated as unreliable and as an afterthought, so the value of branded goods could not be excluded and denial of the notification benefit was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 29 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93832