2005 (2) TMI 124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e very same respondent [1999 (1) TMI 164 - CEGAT, MUMBAI] in respect of the very same period which has held that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of the Notification. This has happened because the respondent had submitted a classification list in respect of its product known as "Betnor" for approval on 6-5-1991. Before the Classification list was approved the respondent cleared its goods .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1986. That Notification granted certain benefits to small scale industries provided that they did not use the brand name of a third person who was not entitled to the exemption as a small scale industry under the Notification. Irrespective of the question whether the respondent should in fact be entitled to the benefit of the Notification or not, we are of the view that this appeal is not sustain .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Department's appeal. The matter came up before the Tribunal and the Tribunal in no uncertain terms affirmed the finding of the Assistant Collector and set aside the demand against the respondent. This decision has not been challenged by the Department. 2. In the meanwhile, the controversy regarding the classification list came up before the High Court. The High Court was also of the view that t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X