<?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 464 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114640</link>
    <description>Penalty was held unwarranted where goods were cleared under a disputed mark and the assessee acted under a bona fide belief that the mark was not a brand name for SSI exemption. The word had been used as a family concern prefix, supporting the view that the conduct was not deliberate or contumacious. On that basis, the penalty alone was set aside, while the duty demand itself was not in dispute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 May 2012 16:09:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=151639" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (10) TMI 464 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114640</link>
      <description>Penalty was held unwarranted where goods were cleared under a disputed mark and the assessee acted under a bona fide belief that the mark was not a brand name for SSI exemption. The word had been used as a family concern prefix, supporting the view that the conduct was not deliberate or contumacious. On that basis, the penalty alone was set aside, while the duty demand itself was not in dispute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Oct 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114640</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>