https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437375 The appeal challenged the confirmation of demand of central excise duties on gold jewellery, amounting to Rs. 9,38,53,940, under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority's interpretation of 'brand name' was contested, emphasizing the importance of considering judicial precedents. The failure to await the outcome of a reference to a Larger Bench was criticized for lacking procedural fairness and natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a decision on merit after the related appeal was resolved, stressing the need to await pending references for a fair adjudication. en-us Tue, 31 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 May 2023 08:48:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437375 The appeal challenged the confirmation of demand of central excise duties on gold jewellery, amounting to Rs. 9,38,53,940, under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The adjudicating authority's interpretation of 'brand name' was contested, emphasizing the importance of considering judicial precedents. The failure to await the outcome of a reference to a Larger Bench was criticized for lacking procedural fairness and natural justice. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a decision on merit after the related appeal was resolved, stressing the need to await pending references for a fair adjudication. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 31 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437375