https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45029 The amended exemption notification denying relief to goods bearing another person's brand name or trade name was challenged as violative of Article 14, but the Court did not depart from its earlier binding ruling upholding the notification's validity. The reconsideration plea was rejected because the issue was already covered by that prior decision, so the constitutional challenge failed and the Revenue's position was sustained. en-us Tue, 29 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Jul 2010 10:12:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45029 The amended exemption notification denying relief to goods bearing another person's brand name or trade name was challenged as violative of Article 14, but the Court did not depart from its earlier binding ruling upholding the notification's validity. The reconsideration plea was rejected because the issue was already covered by that prior decision, so the constitutional challenge failed and the Revenue's position was sustained. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 29 Jul 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=45029