https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264768 The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision that the respondent, a disinfectant manufacturer, was entitled to excise duty exemption under Central Excise Tariff Notification No. 1/93-C.E. for its product "Virkon-S." The Court emphasized the importance of the respondent's legitimate manufacturing activity and proper brand name assignment, stating that mere brand name usage does not automatically disqualify an exemption claim. The decision underscored the necessity of substantial evidence to support reopening cases under Section 11A, highlighting the focus on manufacturing activity rather than brand usage in excise duty exemption matters. en-us Mon, 13 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 01 Oct 2015 11:58:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264768 The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision that the respondent, a disinfectant manufacturer, was entitled to excise duty exemption under Central Excise Tariff Notification No. 1/93-C.E. for its product "Virkon-S." The Court emphasized the importance of the respondent's legitimate manufacturing activity and proper brand name assignment, stating that mere brand name usage does not automatically disqualify an exemption claim. The decision underscored the necessity of substantial evidence to support reopening cases under Section 11A, highlighting the focus on manufacturing activity rather than brand usage in excise duty exemption matters. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 13 Oct 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264768