<?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>1998 (7) TMI 268 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89805</link>
    <description>Small scale industry exemption under Notification No. 175/86 could not be denied where the department relied on a trade mark registration in Class 10, but the assessee&#039;s manufactured goods fell in Class 9. The factual basis for alleging violation of paragraph 7 was absent because the cited registration did not cover the goods actually manufactured. On that footing, the denial of exemption was unsustainable and the relief was restored in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 17:43:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=126867" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (7) TMI 268 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89805</link>
      <description>Small scale industry exemption under Notification No. 175/86 could not be denied where the department relied on a trade mark registration in Class 10, but the assessee&#039;s manufactured goods fell in Class 9. The factual basis for alleging violation of paragraph 7 was absent because the cited registration did not cover the goods actually manufactured. On that footing, the denial of exemption was unsustainable and the relief was restored in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=89805</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>