https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233958 SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE was treated as available where the brand name owner itself qualified, and denial based on an uncorroborated sale statement from a later marketing company was held unsustainable. Allegations of clandestine removal failed because private papers, internal targets and despatch notes did not identify the goods, manufacturer or author, and were not supported by proof of excess production, raw material use, transport or buyer-side evidence. Advertisement and publicity incurred independently by the marketing company were not includible in the manufacturers' assessable value. Confiscation and penalties also fell once the substantive duty demands were not established. en-us Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Oct 2013 18:05:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233958 SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE was treated as available where the brand name owner itself qualified, and denial based on an uncorroborated sale statement from a later marketing company was held unsustainable. Allegations of clandestine removal failed because private papers, internal targets and despatch notes did not identify the goods, manufacturer or author, and were not supported by proof of excess production, raw material use, transport or buyer-side evidence. Advertisement and publicity incurred independently by the marketing company were not includible in the manufacturers' assessable value. Confiscation and penalties also fell once the substantive duty demands were not established. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=233958