Exemption notification restrictions on common brand names across multiple factories were upheld under binding precedent.

An exemption notification condition denying excise benefit where aerated waters bearing the same trade mark or brand name are manufactured in more than one factory, and the aggregate clearances exceed the prescribed limit, was treated as valid. The Court noted that the impugned stipulation was issued under the Central Excise Rules and that an earlier decision had already upheld a similar restriction in another exemption notification. On that precedent, the challenge to the condition failed, and the exemption condition remained operative against the assessees.

---

---

Issues: Whether the condition in the excise exemption notification denying benefit where aerated waters bearing the same trade mark or brand name are manufactured in more than one factory and the aggregate clearances exceed the prescribed limit was valid and applicable to the assessees.

Analysis: The exemption was issued under Section 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and the impugned clause limited the benefit where the aggregate value of clearances of goods bearing the same trade mark or brand name from multiple factories exceeded the prescribed pecuniary limit. The challenge to that stipulation had already been repelled by an earlier decision of the Court upholding an stipulation in another exemption notification, and the controversy in the present matter stood covered by that precedent.

Conclusion: The clause was upheld in principle, the assessees' challenge failed, and the appeals were dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The exemption condition was held operative against the assessees, leaving no ground for interference with the dismissal of the appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: A condition in an exemption notification restricting the benefit where the same trade mark or brand name is used across multiple factories and the aggregate clearances exceed the prescribed limit is valid when upheld by binding precedent.

---