2007 (10) TMI 388

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd claiming exemption even using other's brand name. extended period of limitation not invocable. Impugned Tribunal's order well reasoned. No substantial question of law arise, appeal dismissed. - 15 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 11-10-2007 - Madan B. Lokur and S. Muralidhar, JJ. Shri Jaswinder Singh, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri S.K. Anand, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - T .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ide belief that it was exempted from payment of central excise duty even if it was using the brand name of another person on goods manufactured by it. 4. It appears that there was conflict of views among different Benches of the Tribunal on the interpretation of the exemption Notification No. 1/93 dated 28th February, 1993 which dealt with this issue. Consequently, the dispute was referred to a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... are of the view that opinion expressed by the Tribunal is well reasoned. There is no doubt that there was a conflict of views and that was resolved much later in the year 2002. The period with which we are concerned is 1998-1999 and 1999-2000 at which time the controversy had not been settled by the larger Bench of the Tribunal. The Assessee was justified in proceeding on the basis that it was exe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X