<?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>2001 (1) TMI 362 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95403</link>
    <description>Small scale industry exemption under Notification No. 175/86 was available because the logos and printing used by the two concerns were visually different, and the goods manufactured were also different, carbon tracks being components of potentiometers. On those facts, the department&#039;s allegation that the assessee used another manufacturer&#039;s brand name or trade name was not established, so denial of the exemption was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 12 Dec 2011 11:59:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132462" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (1) TMI 362 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95403</link>
      <description>Small scale industry exemption under Notification No. 175/86 was available because the logos and printing used by the two concerns were visually different, and the goods manufactured were also different, carbon tracks being components of potentiometers. On those facts, the department&#039;s allegation that the assessee used another manufacturer&#039;s brand name or trade name was not established, so denial of the exemption was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95403</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>