<?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>2000 (7) TMI 309 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93734</link>
    <description>Small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., as amended, was unavailable where specified goods bore the brand name of another person who was not eligible for the exemption. The branded goods were found to fall within the statutory bar in para 7, so the duty demand was upheld in full. Conscious use of another&#039;s brand name justified penalty, but the penalty was found excessive and was reduced.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:19:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130794" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 309 - CEGAT,  NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93734</link>
      <description>Small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E., as amended, was unavailable where specified goods bore the brand name of another person who was not eligible for the exemption. The branded goods were found to fall within the statutory bar in para 7, so the duty demand was upheld in full. Conscious use of another&#039;s brand name justified penalty, but the penalty was found excessive and was reduced.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93734</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>