https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50534 SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. could not be denied merely because the goods bore another person's brand name, as the department failed to prove that the brand owner was ineligible for the exemption; the assessee therefore obtained relief on this issue. At the same time, common directors, common premises, exclusive supply, management control, sales promotion support, and interest-free advances established mutuality of interest and financial flow back, so the assessee and the marketing company were treated as related persons and the marketing company's sale price was adopted for valuation. Confiscation was set aside in light of the exemption finding, while the penalty was only reduced and the duty was remitted for requantification. en-us Fri, 23 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Aug 2010 12:36:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50534 SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. could not be denied merely because the goods bore another person's brand name, as the department failed to prove that the brand owner was ineligible for the exemption; the assessee therefore obtained relief on this issue. At the same time, common directors, common premises, exclusive supply, management control, sales promotion support, and interest-free advances established mutuality of interest and financial flow back, so the assessee and the marketing company were treated as related persons and the marketing company's sale price was adopted for valuation. Confiscation was set aside in light of the exemption finding, while the penalty was only reduced and the duty was remitted for requantification. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 23 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50534