https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42755 Markings stencilled on components manufactured for BHEL did not amount to BHEL's brand name or trade name for purposes of clause 7 read with Explanation VIII of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. The court held that the statutory test requires a name or mark used on the goods to indicate a trade connection with another person, and that identifying particulars such as quantity, weight, work order number, product number, unit code and destination were not enough. Contractual markings that merely helped identify the source of supply did not attract the brand-name exclusion, so the small-scale exemption could not be denied on that basis. en-us Thu, 05 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:56:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42755 Markings stencilled on components manufactured for BHEL did not amount to BHEL's brand name or trade name for purposes of clause 7 read with Explanation VIII of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. The court held that the statutory test requires a name or mark used on the goods to indicate a trade connection with another person, and that identifying particulars such as quantity, weight, work order number, product number, unit code and destination were not enough. Contractual markings that merely helped identify the source of supply did not attract the brand-name exclusion, so the small-scale exemption could not be denied on that basis. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 05 Apr 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42755