https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80058 Electronic typewriters did not amount to a "new article" under Section 3(dd)(b) because the record showed no material that they would be marketed under a mark different from the petitioners' existing trade mark for standard typewriters. The existing industrial licence for typewriters under Item 13(1) of the First Schedule therefore covered their manufacture, and no fresh industrial licence was required. The court rejected the suggestion that a different marketing description should be assumed, since that was a factual matter requiring proof. en-us Mon, 07 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Aug 2011 16:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80058 Electronic typewriters did not amount to a "new article" under Section 3(dd)(b) because the record showed no material that they would be marketed under a mark different from the petitioners' existing trade mark for standard typewriters. The existing industrial licence for typewriters under Item 13(1) of the First Schedule therefore covered their manufacture, and no fresh industrial licence was required. The court rejected the suggestion that a different marketing description should be assumed, since that was a factual matter requiring proof. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 07 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80058