https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261495 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in an appeal under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, regarding the interpretation of brand-name under Notification No.1/93 CE. The Court agreed with CESTAT's finding that the marks not affixed on the goods did not constitute affixing another brand-name. It was determined that the respondent's use of the Voltarc symbol was the company's name, not a trade mark of the product. The appeal lacked a substantial question of law, and the challenge on the limitation period was not contested. Consequently, the Central Excise Appeal was dismissed without costs, concluding the legal proceedings. en-us Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Oct 2015 17:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261495 The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in an appeal under Section 35(G) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, regarding the interpretation of brand-name under Notification No.1/93 CE. The Court agreed with CESTAT's finding that the marks not affixed on the goods did not constitute affixing another brand-name. It was determined that the respondent's use of the Voltarc symbol was the company's name, not a trade mark of the product. The appeal lacked a substantial question of law, and the challenge on the limitation period was not contested. Consequently, the Central Excise Appeal was dismissed without costs, concluding the legal proceedings. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 24 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=261495