<?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>2005 (7) TMI 483 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116402</link>
    <description>Use of another person&#039;s brand name or logo disqualifies an assessee from Small Scale Industry exemption, so the exemption claim was rightly rejected. The decision also held that goods admittedly not accounted for in statutory records were liable to confiscation, and the resulting redemption fine and penalty were sustainable because the matter was not a mere bookkeeping lapse. The adjudication restoring the duty demand, confiscation and penalty was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2012 11:47:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153400" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 483 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116402</link>
      <description>Use of another person&#039;s brand name or logo disqualifies an assessee from Small Scale Industry exemption, so the exemption claim was rightly rejected. The decision also held that goods admittedly not accounted for in statutory records were liable to confiscation, and the resulting redemption fine and penalty were sustainable because the matter was not a mere bookkeeping lapse. The adjudication restoring the duty demand, confiscation and penalty was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116402</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>