<?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>2004 (6) TMI 404 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112136</link>
    <description>Clearances of goods bearing another person&#039;s brand name or monogram, when removed on payment of full duty and without claiming SSI exemption, were held outside the aggregate value for small-scale exemption under Notification No. 9/2000-C.E. The notification&#039;s exclusion for branded clearances applied because the goods carried the other concern&#039;s monogram, which fell within the definition of brand name. As those clearances were ineligible for exemption and duty had been paid at tariff rate, they could not be counted for computing the aggregate value of home clearances. The assessee therefore succeeded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 17:18:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=149152" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (6) TMI 404 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112136</link>
      <description>Clearances of goods bearing another person&#039;s brand name or monogram, when removed on payment of full duty and without claiming SSI exemption, were held outside the aggregate value for small-scale exemption under Notification No. 9/2000-C.E. The notification&#039;s exclusion for branded clearances applied because the goods carried the other concern&#039;s monogram, which fell within the definition of brand name. As those clearances were ineligible for exemption and duty had been paid at tariff rate, they could not be counted for computing the aggregate value of home clearances. The assessee therefore succeeded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=112136</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>