https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260 Exemption under Notification No. 1/93 was examined in relation to use of a disputed mark, and the first user in time was treated as having the superior right to the mark for commercial use. On the admitted facts, another unit had used the same mark earlier, so the exemption could not be claimed for sanitary ware cleared under that disputed mark; however, goods cleared under other marks stood on a different footing and were not rejected across the board. Because the extent of clearances requiring denial had to be recalculated, duty liability and the limitation objection also required fresh determination on remand. en-us Fri, 08 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 May 2022 16:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260 Exemption under Notification No. 1/93 was examined in relation to use of a disputed mark, and the first user in time was treated as having the superior right to the mark for commercial use. On the admitted facts, another unit had used the same mark earlier, so the exemption could not be claimed for sanitary ware cleared under that disputed mark; however, goods cleared under other marks stood on a different footing and were not rejected across the board. Because the extent of clearances requiring denial had to be recalculated, duty liability and the limitation objection also required fresh determination on remand. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 08 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=260