<?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 (3) TMI 865 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102971</link>
    <description>Small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was unavailable where the assessee&#039;s goods bore the brand name of a foreign manufacturer. The free abrasive machines were admittedly marked &quot;FAM&quot;, a brand belonging to a Japanese company, and the matter was governed by a Larger Bench view relied on by the Revenue. On that basis, the brand owner was ineligible for the exemption, and the assessee could not claim the same benefit through use of that brand name.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2012 12:28:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=140017" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 865 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102971</link>
      <description>Small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was unavailable where the assessee&#039;s goods bore the brand name of a foreign manufacturer. The free abrasive machines were admittedly marked &quot;FAM&quot;, a brand belonging to a Japanese company, and the matter was governed by a Larger Bench view relied on by the Revenue. On that basis, the brand owner was ineligible for the exemption, and the assessee could not claim the same benefit through use of that brand name.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102971</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>