<?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>2003 (7) TMI 618 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110296</link>
    <description>Small scale industry exemption could not be denied merely because the assessee manufactured ice cream under another co-operative society&#039;s brand name. The controlling test was whether the brand owner was itself manufacturing the specified goods; unless that condition is satisfied, use of the brand name alone does not defeat SSI exemption. Here, the brand owner was not manufacturing ice cream, so the statutory ground for denial was not met and the exemption remained available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Apr 2012 11:42:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=147312" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (7) TMI 618 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110296</link>
      <description>Small scale industry exemption could not be denied merely because the assessee manufactured ice cream under another co-operative society&#039;s brand name. The controlling test was whether the brand owner was itself manufacturing the specified goods; unless that condition is satisfied, use of the brand name alone does not defeat SSI exemption. Here, the brand owner was not manufacturing ice cream, so the statutory ground for denial was not met and the exemption remained available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110296</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>