https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350949 At the stage of considering leave to urge additional grounds under Rule 10 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, the Tribunal may decide only whether leave should be granted and must not enter into the merits of the proposed grounds; the leave rejection was therefore procedurally incorrect and was set aside. On the exemption issue, goods bearing a customer's brand name fell outside Notification No. 1 of 1993, because exemption notifications are strictly construed according to their plain terms. The assessee's reliance on the departmental circular, promissory estoppel, and prospective application of later Supreme Court decisions was rejected, and the exemption claim failed. en-us Wed, 13 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Nov 2017 06:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350949 At the stage of considering leave to urge additional grounds under Rule 10 of the CESTAT Procedure Rules, the Tribunal may decide only whether leave should be granted and must not enter into the merits of the proposed grounds; the leave rejection was therefore procedurally incorrect and was set aside. On the exemption issue, goods bearing a customer's brand name fell outside Notification No. 1 of 1993, because exemption notifications are strictly construed according to their plain terms. The assessee's reliance on the departmental circular, promissory estoppel, and prospective application of later Supreme Court decisions was rejected, and the exemption claim failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 13 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=350949