https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40736 The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, holding that the usage of a brand name alone does not establish manufacturing ownership for excise duty assessment. The judgment invalidated the erroneous orders and detention memos, providing relief to the petitioners. The court directed the separate consideration of refund applications according to the law, quashing the impugned orders and detention memos without imposing costs on the petitioners and discharging their bank guarantee. en-us Mon, 24 Sep 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 May 2010 11:16:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40736 The court ruled in favor of the petitioners, holding that the usage of a brand name alone does not establish manufacturing ownership for excise duty assessment. The judgment invalidated the erroneous orders and detention memos, providing relief to the petitioners. The court directed the separate consideration of refund applications according to the law, quashing the impugned orders and detention memos without imposing costs on the petitioners and discharging their bank guarantee. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Sep 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=40736