https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354706 In proceedings before CESTAT Chennai, the Tribunal noted that a manufacturer-versus-trader contention could not be reopened at a later stage because the earlier remand had confined the enquiry to the availability of small-scale exemption. It therefore declined to travel beyond the scope of the prior orders and rejected the claim that the appellant was not the manufacturer. On the exemption issue, the Tribunal found that the trademark 'Mahaan' was endorsed in the appellant's name only from 01.04.1998, that exemption had already been granted for the eligible post-dated period, and that no fresh factual or legal basis existed to disturb the remaining demand. The appeal failed in full. en-us Mon, 23 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Feb 2018 08:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354706 In proceedings before CESTAT Chennai, the Tribunal noted that a manufacturer-versus-trader contention could not be reopened at a later stage because the earlier remand had confined the enquiry to the availability of small-scale exemption. It therefore declined to travel beyond the scope of the prior orders and rejected the claim that the appellant was not the manufacturer. On the exemption issue, the Tribunal found that the trademark 'Mahaan' was endorsed in the appellant's name only from 01.04.1998, that exemption had already been granted for the eligible post-dated period, and that no fresh factual or legal basis existed to disturb the remaining demand. The appeal failed in full. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 23 Oct 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354706