https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54168 Use of another person's brand name disqualified the manufacturer from small-scale industry exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., even where that person used the brand name for different goods; the nature of the other person's goods was immaterial. However, the extended limitation period could not be invoked. Erection and commissioning charges were not includible in assessable value, and an SSI unit was not required to disclose use of another person's brand name in its Rule 173B declaration. The required suppression-related ingredients were therefore absent. The duty demand was time-barred and the consequential penalty could not survive, although the exemption claim failed on merits. en-us Tue, 07 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:11:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54168 Use of another person's brand name disqualified the manufacturer from small-scale industry exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., even where that person used the brand name for different goods; the nature of the other person's goods was immaterial. However, the extended limitation period could not be invoked. Erection and commissioning charges were not includible in assessable value, and an SSI unit was not required to disclose use of another person's brand name in its Rule 173B declaration. The required suppression-related ingredients were therefore absent. The duty demand was time-barred and the consequential penalty could not survive, although the exemption claim failed on merits. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54168