https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120087 Exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was denied because the goods bore another person's brand name, and the notification was applied on a strict footing without implying any captive-use exception. The binding Supreme Court interpretation was treated as decisive, and the earlier contrary view in Prakash Industries was noted as overruled. In the stay application, closure of the factory was held insufficient by itself to justify complete waiver of pre-deposit, particularly where the duty demand was comparatively small. Interim protection was therefore made conditional on deposit of the duty amount, while limited protection was granted against the penalty demand. en-us Mon, 04 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:37:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120087 Exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was denied because the goods bore another person's brand name, and the notification was applied on a strict footing without implying any captive-use exception. The binding Supreme Court interpretation was treated as decisive, and the earlier contrary view in Prakash Industries was noted as overruled. In the stay application, closure of the factory was held insufficient by itself to justify complete waiver of pre-deposit, particularly where the duty demand was comparatively small. Interim protection was therefore made conditional on deposit of the duty amount, while limited protection was granted against the penalty demand. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=120087