https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50144 Exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE could not be denied merely because the goods bore another person's brand name, where that brand name owner was otherwise eligible as an SSI unit and its clearances of wholly exempt goods were excluded from the aggregate limit. Paragraph 7 applied only if the specified goods bore the brand name of a person not eligible for the notification. The fact that the brand name owner did not manufacture the same specified goods did not, by itself, attract the mischief of paragraph 7. The respondents were therefore entitled to the exemption, and the Revenue's appeals failed on merits. en-us Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:09:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50144 Exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE could not be denied merely because the goods bore another person's brand name, where that brand name owner was otherwise eligible as an SSI unit and its clearances of wholly exempt goods were excluded from the aggregate limit. Paragraph 7 applied only if the specified goods bore the brand name of a person not eligible for the notification. The fact that the brand name owner did not manufacture the same specified goods did not, by itself, attract the mischief of paragraph 7. The respondents were therefore entitled to the exemption, and the Revenue's appeals failed on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 13 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50144