<?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 (10) TMI 449 - CESTAT,  BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114624</link>
    <description>Plastic doors fabricated from purchased sections and profiles, then cleared for sale and later fixed at customers&#039; premises, remained marketable manufactured goods and were therefore excisable; later installation did not make them immovable property at the stage of removal. The use of the mark &quot;SINTEX&quot; on the doors, including stickers and invoices describing them as Sintex PVC doors, established use of another commercial source&#039;s brand name, so small scale industry exemption was not available. The duty demand and principal findings on excisability and brand-name use were sustained, while the penalty was set aside and the matter was modified on Modvat credit, cum-duty valuation, and quantification of duty liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 15:02:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151623" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (10) TMI 449 - CESTAT,  BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114624</link>
      <description>Plastic doors fabricated from purchased sections and profiles, then cleared for sale and later fixed at customers&#039; premises, remained marketable manufactured goods and were therefore excisable; later installation did not make them immovable property at the stage of removal. The use of the mark &quot;SINTEX&quot; on the doors, including stickers and invoices describing them as Sintex PVC doors, established use of another commercial source&#039;s brand name, so small scale industry exemption was not available. The duty demand and principal findings on excisability and brand-name use were sustained, while the penalty was set aside and the matter was modified on Modvat credit, cum-duty valuation, and quantification of duty liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114624</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>