https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43077 In construing a fiscal exemption notification, the word "same" in the phrase relating to trade mark or brand name must be given its plain meaning and cannot be expanded to cover "similar" or "deceptively similar" marks by borrowing concepts from trade mark law. On the facts, the six units were not shown to be using one and the same trade mark or brand name, so the individual exemption under Notification No. 148/82-C.E. was available. The alternative remedy objection also failed because writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary, the dispute raised a pure question of interpretation, and no disputed facts required adjudication. en-us Fri, 22 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Jun 2010 10:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43077 In construing a fiscal exemption notification, the word "same" in the phrase relating to trade mark or brand name must be given its plain meaning and cannot be expanded to cover "similar" or "deceptively similar" marks by borrowing concepts from trade mark law. On the facts, the six units were not shown to be using one and the same trade mark or brand name, so the individual exemption under Notification No. 148/82-C.E. was available. The alternative remedy objection also failed because writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary, the dispute raised a pure question of interpretation, and no disputed facts required adjudication. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Feb 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43077