https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275609 Goods bearing another person's brand name were held outside the scope of Notification No. 8/2003 unless the case fell within the notification's express exception, so exemption was denied on that basis. The assessee's claim to SSI exemption and cum-duty benefit was accepted for further verification because duty, cenvat credit and related computation needed fresh examination by the original authority; the matter was remanded for limited recomputation and consequential penalty review. The finding on limitation was not disturbed and was sustained. en-us Wed, 10 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 10 Oct 2018 09:06:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275609 Goods bearing another person's brand name were held outside the scope of Notification No. 8/2003 unless the case fell within the notification's express exception, so exemption was denied on that basis. The assessee's claim to SSI exemption and cum-duty benefit was accepted for further verification because duty, cenvat credit and related computation needed fresh examination by the original authority; the matter was remanded for limited recomputation and consequential penalty review. The finding on limitation was not disturbed and was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 10 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=275609