https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44302 An exemption notification condition denying excise benefit where aerated waters bearing the same trade mark or brand name are manufactured in more than one factory, and the aggregate clearances exceed the prescribed limit, was treated as valid. The Court noted that the impugned stipulation was issued under the Central Excise Rules and that an earlier decision had already upheld a similar restriction in another exemption notification. On that precedent, the challenge to the condition failed, and the exemption condition remained operative against the assessees. en-us Thu, 18 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:16:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44302 An exemption notification condition denying excise benefit where aerated waters bearing the same trade mark or brand name are manufactured in more than one factory, and the aggregate clearances exceed the prescribed limit, was treated as valid. The Court noted that the impugned stipulation was issued under the Central Excise Rules and that an earlier decision had already upheld a similar restriction in another exemption notification. On that precedent, the challenge to the condition failed, and the exemption condition remained operative against the assessees. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 18 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=44302