https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153024 Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. excluded specified goods bearing another person's brand name or trade name from SSI exemption, while directing that such ineligible clearances would not count toward the aggregate clearances for the exemption slab. The scheme therefore allowed branded goods to remain outside the SSI benefit without preventing exemption for other eligible, non-branded goods. The reasoning in Ramesh Food Products was confined to the distinct structure of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. and the then-prevailing Modvat framework, where the credit and exemption benefits were mutually inconsistent. On that basis, concurrent Cenvat credit on excluded goods did not by itself defeat SSI exemption for other clearances. en-us Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 May 2017 09:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153024 Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. excluded specified goods bearing another person's brand name or trade name from SSI exemption, while directing that such ineligible clearances would not count toward the aggregate clearances for the exemption slab. The scheme therefore allowed branded goods to remain outside the SSI benefit without preventing exemption for other eligible, non-branded goods. The reasoning in Ramesh Food Products was confined to the distinct structure of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. and the then-prevailing Modvat framework, where the credit and exemption benefits were mutually inconsistent. On that basis, concurrent Cenvat credit on excluded goods did not by itself defeat SSI exemption for other clearances. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 28 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153024