https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42761 Ancillary units were treated as manufacturers for central excise purposes, but the exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was unavailable because the finished components had to bear stencilled work-order, project, code and related particulars linking them to the principal manufacturer and project recipient. Those markings were held to create a connection in the course of trade and to attract Explanation VIII to paragraph 7 of the notification, which excludes goods bearing another person's brand name or trade name. The prior practice of clearing the goods on duty and the contractual arrangement between the parties reinforced application of the exclusion, so the exemption claim failed. en-us Tue, 23 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Jun 2010 11:16:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42761 Ancillary units were treated as manufacturers for central excise purposes, but the exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was unavailable because the finished components had to bear stencilled work-order, project, code and related particulars linking them to the principal manufacturer and project recipient. Those markings were held to create a connection in the course of trade and to attract Explanation VIII to paragraph 7 of the notification, which excludes goods bearing another person's brand name or trade name. The prior practice of clearing the goods on duty and the contractual arrangement between the parties reinforced application of the exclusion, so the exemption claim failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 23 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42761