https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42388 A writ challenge to an excise order was maintainable where the dispute turned on construction of the exemption notification and not on controverted facts; the existence of an appellate remedy did not bar Article 226 relief, and the patent misconstruction of the notification justified intervention. On merits, aerated waters sold under different brand names, even if allegedly deceptively similar or derived from the same source, did not amount to manufacture under the same trade mark or brand name. The authority could not import a notion of similarity into a notification confined to identical marks, so the exemption was available and the duty and penalties could not be sustained. en-us Fri, 29 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Jun 2010 18:34:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42388 A writ challenge to an excise order was maintainable where the dispute turned on construction of the exemption notification and not on controverted facts; the existence of an appellate remedy did not bar Article 226 relief, and the patent misconstruction of the notification justified intervention. On merits, aerated waters sold under different brand names, even if allegedly deceptively similar or derived from the same source, did not amount to manufacture under the same trade mark or brand name. The authority could not import a notion of similarity into a notification confined to identical marks, so the exemption was available and the duty and penalties could not be sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Jul 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=42388