<?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 (9) TMI 549 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95824</link>
    <description>Marking goods with &quot;KEB&quot; did not constitute use of a brand name or trade name under the small scale industry exemption notification, because the marking merely identified the electricity board and did not indicate commercial branding. Applying the settled ratio of earlier decisions, the Tribunal held that denial of exemption on that basis was not sustainable, and the assessee remained entitled to the exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2019 16:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=132883" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 549 - CEGAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95824</link>
      <description>Marking goods with &quot;KEB&quot; did not constitute use of a brand name or trade name under the small scale industry exemption notification, because the marking merely identified the electricity board and did not indicate commercial branding. Applying the settled ratio of earlier decisions, the Tribunal held that denial of exemption on that basis was not sustainable, and the assessee remained entitled to the exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95824</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>