https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278129 CESTAT New Delhi held that the phrase "another person" in para 7 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., as amended, covered both manufacturers and trading concerns, so exemption was unavailable where the brand name belonged to a trader. It further found that the appellants held a bona fide view and there was no wilful suppression, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked and the demand was confined to six months. Duty was required to be computed on a cum-duty basis, Modvat credit on eligible inputs was to be allowed, and confiscation was upheld while penalties were set aside. en-us Wed, 03 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Jan 2019 15:03:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278129 CESTAT New Delhi held that the phrase "another person" in para 7 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., as amended, covered both manufacturers and trading concerns, so exemption was unavailable where the brand name belonged to a trader. It further found that the appellants held a bona fide view and there was no wilful suppression, so the extended limitation period could not be invoked and the demand was confined to six months. Duty was required to be computed on a cum-duty basis, Modvat credit on eligible inputs was to be allowed, and confiscation was upheld while penalties were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 Mar 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278129