https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111862 PET bottle manufacture bearing another unit's brand name did not, on the stated facts, justify denial of SSI exemption under Notification No. 9/2000-C.E. The records showed that both units sent dies for repair around the same time and, after return, each began producing bottles with the other unit's brand name, supporting an accidental interchange of dies rather than deliberate use of another's brand. In the absence of evidence of a planned arrangement, prior orders for cross-manufacture, or documentary proof of intentional branded production, the Revenue's case failed. The exemption was therefore available and the duty demand was unsustainable. en-us Thu, 17 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:52:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111862 PET bottle manufacture bearing another unit's brand name did not, on the stated facts, justify denial of SSI exemption under Notification No. 9/2000-C.E. The records showed that both units sent dies for repair around the same time and, after return, each began producing bottles with the other unit's brand name, supporting an accidental interchange of dies rather than deliberate use of another's brand. In the absence of evidence of a planned arrangement, prior orders for cross-manufacture, or documentary proof of intentional branded production, the Revenue's case failed. The exemption was therefore available and the duty demand was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 17 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111862