<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (2) TMI 526 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78734</link>
    <description>SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was available for the pre-1-3-94 period because the restriction then applied only where the manufacturer affixed goods with another person&#039;s brand name or trade name. Notification No. 59/94-C.E. broadened that condition to goods merely bearing another person&#039;s brand name, but the amendment operated only from 1-3-94 and could not govern an earlier period. On the facts noted, the goods were not shown to have been branded by the manufacturer in the manner required by the pre-amendment notification, so the earlier Tribunal view was correctly applied and the price list was rightly approved for that period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Dec 2010 16:39:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116841" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 526 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78734</link>
      <description>SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was available for the pre-1-3-94 period because the restriction then applied only where the manufacturer affixed goods with another person&#039;s brand name or trade name. Notification No. 59/94-C.E. broadened that condition to goods merely bearing another person&#039;s brand name, but the amendment operated only from 1-3-94 and could not govern an earlier period. On the facts noted, the goods were not shown to have been branded by the manufacturer in the manner required by the pre-amendment notification, so the earlier Tribunal view was correctly applied and the price list was rightly approved for that period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78734</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>