https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288276 Exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE was denied because the goods bore another person's brand name, and the decisive test was whether the mark indicated a trade connection with that person. The fact that the products were differently presented or not identical to the brand owner's goods did not avoid the notification's bar, and payment for use of the brand name supported the Revenue's case. The extended period of limitation was also held invokable because the brand-name use was not properly disclosed to the Department, and the appeal failed in full with demand and penalty sustained. en-us Fri, 22 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 30 May 2020 10:21:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288276 Exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE was denied because the goods bore another person's brand name, and the decisive test was whether the mark indicated a trade connection with that person. The fact that the products were differently presented or not identical to the brand owner's goods did not avoid the notification's bar, and payment for use of the brand name supported the Revenue's case. The extended period of limitation was also held invokable because the brand-name use was not properly disclosed to the Department, and the appeal failed in full with demand and penalty sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288276