TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 745X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finding of fact, but, we have also compared the two logos. They are different and not deceptive. The assessee was entitled to exemption. - there is no merit in the appeal - Decided against Revenue. - Tax Case No. 38 of 2006 - - - Dated:- 18-1-2013 - Yatindra Singh and Sunil Kumar Sinha, JJ. ORDER M/s. Hira Cement (the assessee) manufactures cement and is a proprietorship firm. Admitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court, which was allowed on 2-2-2006 and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for re-decision on merits. 6. The Tribunal again dismissed the appeal of the Department on 3-4-2006. Hence, the present appeal. 7. We have heard counsel for the parties. 8. This appeal was admitted on 13-2-2007 on the substantial questions of law mentioned in the memo of appeal. 9. There are five q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt is therefore, liable to be dealt with as per the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rules framed thereunder as then applicable? 10. The Tribunal has recorded finding in Paras 9 and 10 of the judgment that the logos of the assessee as well as Hira Industries are different and they are not deceptive. This is not only a finding of fact, but, we have also compared the two logos. They are different an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|