https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245142 Pre-deposit was dispensed with in a dispute over denial of exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE, where the department alleged use of another manufacturer's brand name on the products. The matter was treated as covered by precedent, and the cited contrary order was found distinguishable because it involved goods admittedly manufactured for another pharmaceutical company under its brand name and logo. On the comparable facts relied upon in a stay matter, unconditional interim relief was granted and the assessee was not required to make the pre-deposit, without any adjudication on the merits of the duty demand. en-us Wed, 30 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Mar 2014 06:42:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245142 Pre-deposit was dispensed with in a dispute over denial of exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE, where the department alleged use of another manufacturer's brand name on the products. The matter was treated as covered by precedent, and the cited contrary order was found distinguishable because it involved goods admittedly manufactured for another pharmaceutical company under its brand name and logo. On the comparable facts relied upon in a stay matter, unconditional interim relief was granted and the assessee was not required to make the pre-deposit, without any adjudication on the merits of the duty demand. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 30 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=245142