<?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>1999 (3) TMI 283 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92095</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was unavailable where specified goods bore the brand name or monogram of a person other than the manufacturer and that person was not otherwise entitled to the notification benefit. The presence of another person&#039;s monogram on cartons and labels took the goods outside the exemption, and a dealer or marketer could not rely on its turnover for eligibility. Central excise duty demand was therefore justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:41:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129156" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (3) TMI 283 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92095</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was unavailable where specified goods bore the brand name or monogram of a person other than the manufacturer and that person was not otherwise entitled to the notification benefit. The presence of another person&#039;s monogram on cartons and labels took the goods outside the exemption, and a dealer or marketer could not rely on its turnover for eligibility. Central excise duty demand was therefore justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92095</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>