https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51944 Small-scale exemption under Notifications No. 175/86-C.E. and 1/93-C.E. was unavailable where excisable goods bore another person's brand name, because the statutory bar applies to brand names of non-manufacturing traders as well as manufacturers. Related-person valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act required proof of mutuality of interest in each other's business; mere buyer-specific manufacture, supervision, or supply arrangements was insufficient. Non-disclosure of the brand name in returns supported invocation of the extended limitation period, while penalty and interest consequences depended on the applicable period. The matter also involved recomputation of duty, examination of overlapping demands, Modvat credit on proof of duty-paid documents, and reconsideration of penalty on one appellant. en-us Wed, 07 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Sep 2010 13:14:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51944 Small-scale exemption under Notifications No. 175/86-C.E. and 1/93-C.E. was unavailable where excisable goods bore another person's brand name, because the statutory bar applies to brand names of non-manufacturing traders as well as manufacturers. Related-person valuation under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act required proof of mutuality of interest in each other's business; mere buyer-specific manufacture, supervision, or supply arrangements was insufficient. Non-disclosure of the brand name in returns supported invocation of the extended limitation period, while penalty and interest consequences depended on the applicable period. The matter also involved recomputation of duty, examination of overlapping demands, Modvat credit on proof of duty-paid documents, and reconsideration of penalty on one appellant. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 07 May 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51944