https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46496 Extended-period duty demand under the Central Excise Act could not rest on alleged suppression where the relationship between the assessee and distributor had already been disclosed to the department; a later change in view on those facts did not constitute suppression. Exemption under paragraph 7 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was also available because the disqualification applies only when the manufacturer uses another person's brand name or trade name on the goods; continued use of the same logo by the assignor or a third party did not attract the restriction once assignment to the assessee was accepted. The penalty under Rule 173Q, being based on the same unsustainable foundation, was likewise set aside. en-us Wed, 19 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Sep 2025 14:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46496 Extended-period duty demand under the Central Excise Act could not rest on alleged suppression where the relationship between the assessee and distributor had already been disclosed to the department; a later change in view on those facts did not constitute suppression. Exemption under paragraph 7 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was also available because the disqualification applies only when the manufacturer uses another person's brand name or trade name on the goods; continued use of the same logo by the assignor or a third party did not attract the restriction once assignment to the assessee was accepted. The penalty under Rule 173Q, being based on the same unsustainable foundation, was likewise set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 19 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46496