https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95495 Duty demand on spares was confirmed because that component was not pressed before the Tribunal and no merits adjudication was undertaken. On the branded goods, exemption under Notification No. 175/86 turned on whether the mark affixed constituted a foreign brand name or trade name within the exclusion clause. Because the record did not clearly establish the exact mark used, and the agreement and seizure record did not fully correspond, the factual foundation for applying the exclusion remained unresolved. The exemption question was therefore remanded for de novo adjudication on the basis of the mark affixed and its coverage under the notification. en-us Thu, 08 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:28:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95495 Duty demand on spares was confirmed because that component was not pressed before the Tribunal and no merits adjudication was undertaken. On the branded goods, exemption under Notification No. 175/86 turned on whether the mark affixed constituted a foreign brand name or trade name within the exclusion clause. Because the record did not clearly establish the exact mark used, and the agreement and seizure record did not fully correspond, the factual foundation for applying the exclusion remained unresolved. The exemption question was therefore remanded for de novo adjudication on the basis of the mark affixed and its coverage under the notification. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 08 Feb 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95495