https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93997 Goods bearing another person's brand name fell outside Notification No. 1/93-C.E. and were liable to duty, while the assessee's own-brand goods remained eligible for exemption. The two categories were treated as distinct for duty purposes, so the assessee could clear exempt goods without duty even during the same period in which non-exempt branded goods were cleared on payment of duty. In the absence of any finding that Modvat credit had been taken on inputs used for the exempt goods, no duty could be demanded on those exempt clearances merely because the assessee also cleared other goods on duty payment. en-us Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 18 Nov 2011 13:03:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93997 Goods bearing another person's brand name fell outside Notification No. 1/93-C.E. and were liable to duty, while the assessee's own-brand goods remained eligible for exemption. The two categories were treated as distinct for duty purposes, so the assessee could clear exempt goods without duty even during the same period in which non-exempt branded goods were cleared on payment of duty. In the absence of any finding that Modvat credit had been taken on inputs used for the exempt goods, no duty could be demanded on those exempt clearances merely because the assessee also cleared other goods on duty payment. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 16 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93997