https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94498 Liquid gold was treated as a chemical product classifiable under Chapter 32 of the Central Excise Tariff rather than as an article of gold under Chapter 71, because it lost identifiable metallic content and an interpretation under another statute could not control excise classification. The assessee's claim to Chapter 71 classification was rejected. On the exemption issue, the brand name assignment deed for "Golden Oriole" could not be disregarded on suspicion alone, and documentary evidence of ownership was accepted absent proof that it was fabricated or executed later. The assessee was held to own the brand name on the relevant date and was entitled to Notification No. 1/93-CE relief. en-us Thu, 16 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:25:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94498 Liquid gold was treated as a chemical product classifiable under Chapter 32 of the Central Excise Tariff rather than as an article of gold under Chapter 71, because it lost identifiable metallic content and an interpretation under another statute could not control excise classification. The assessee's claim to Chapter 71 classification was rejected. On the exemption issue, the brand name assignment deed for "Golden Oriole" could not be disregarded on suspicion alone, and documentary evidence of ownership was accepted absent proof that it was fabricated or executed later. The assessee was held to own the brand name on the relevant date and was entitled to Notification No. 1/93-CE relief. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 16 Dec 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=94498