<?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 (5) TMI 730 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100587</link>
    <description>Clearance of machined castings bearing only OEM code numbers, drawing numbers or part names did not by itself amount to use of a disqualifying brand name, so SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. remained available where no contrary branding was established. Once the exemption applied and the duty demand failed, the penalty under Rule 173Q also lacked an independent basis and could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 12:51:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=137638" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (5) TMI 730 - CEGAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100587</link>
      <description>Clearance of machined castings bearing only OEM code numbers, drawing numbers or part names did not by itself amount to use of a disqualifying brand name, so SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. remained available where no contrary branding was established. Once the exemption applied and the duty demand failed, the penalty under Rule 173Q also lacked an independent basis and could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=100587</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>