<?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>1997 (2) TMI 316 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89712</link>
    <description>Eligibility for a small-scale exemption is distinct from actual availing of the notification. A manufacturer is not disqualified merely because the brand owner did not in fact claim the exemption or make clearances during the relevant period; the decisive question is whether the unit satisfied the notification&#039;s conditions. On the stated facts, the brand owner met the small-scale unit criteria and clearance-value requirements, so the brand-name exclusion was not attracted on the department&#039;s reasoning. The exemption remained available and the demand based on alleged brand-name disqualification could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:58:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126774" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (2) TMI 316 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89712</link>
      <description>Eligibility for a small-scale exemption is distinct from actual availing of the notification. A manufacturer is not disqualified merely because the brand owner did not in fact claim the exemption or make clearances during the relevant period; the decisive question is whether the unit satisfied the notification&#039;s conditions. On the stated facts, the brand owner met the small-scale unit criteria and clearance-value requirements, so the brand-name exclusion was not attracted on the department&#039;s reasoning. The exemption remained available and the demand based on alleged brand-name disqualification could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89712</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>