2008 (6) TMI 478

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Appellant. Shri N.A. Sayed, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. -  This stay application is directed against the confirmation of demand of Rs. 48,79,451/- and imposition of penalty of equivalent amount. 2. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the class....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e 2 of Section VII clearly excludes the product manufactured by the applicant. To emphasize the point, he draws our attention to the samples. It is submitted that this case is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Metagraphs Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Bombay as reported at 1996 (88) E.L.T. 630 (S.C.) and also by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Aurangabad v. Adhu....