TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (5) TMI 27
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h Sehaj Bir Singh, Advocates, for the Appellant. Shri Sukhdev Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER By way of this order, we shall dispose of Central Excise Appeal Nos. 45 and 46 of 2013, as they involve adjudication of a similar question of law, namely, whether in similar circumstances, the Tribunal could pass different orders. 2. Counsel for the appellant submits that apar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3. Counsel for the Revenue, however, submits that as the learned Tribunal has, in the exercise of its discretion, already accepted the appellant's application for stay by reducing the amount of pre-deposit to 50% of the demand raised, the impugned order is neither perverse nor arbitrary and, therefore, does not call for interference. 4. We have heard counsel for the parties, perused t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n a remote area of the country had used the trade mark earlier is unfounded. The notification clearly indicates that the assessee will be debarred only if it uses on the goods in respect of which exemption is sought, the same/similar brand name with the intention of indicating a connection with the assessees' goods and such other person or uses the name in such a manner that it would indicate such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re-deposit of duty demand, interest and penalty is dispensed with and recovery stayed." 6. In the appeals filed by the appellants, the learned Tribunal has held to the contrary by holding that failure of the appellant' to produce the MOU before the Tribunal and before the Assessing Officer, does not entitle the appellants to similar relief. As there is no denial that the trade mark is bein....