<?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 (5) TMI 527 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116451</link>
    <description>Small-scale exemption under the relevant notifications is not denied merely because castings already bear another manufacturer&#039;s brand name when received by the assessee. Where independent foundries manufacture castings to the brand owner&#039;s specifications and the brand mark is embossed at the casting stage, the exclusion clause does not apply if the assessee does not itself affix that brand name on the finished goods. The CESTAT relied on settled precedent, including an earlier identical ruling affirmed by the Supreme Court and a further Tribunal decision on castings received with an existing brand mark, to support this interpretation. On that basis, SSI exemption remains available in such circumstances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:24:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153449" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (5) TMI 527 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116451</link>
      <description>Small-scale exemption under the relevant notifications is not denied merely because castings already bear another manufacturer&#039;s brand name when received by the assessee. Where independent foundries manufacture castings to the brand owner&#039;s specifications and the brand mark is embossed at the casting stage, the exclusion clause does not apply if the assessee does not itself affix that brand name on the finished goods. The CESTAT relied on settled precedent, including an earlier identical ruling affirmed by the Supreme Court and a further Tribunal decision on castings received with an existing brand mark, to support this interpretation. On that basis, SSI exemption remains available in such circumstances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116451</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>