<?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 (6) TMI 456 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116458</link>
    <description>SSI exemption could not be denied merely because the assessee used another person&#039;s brand name on cakes and pastries where that other person did not manufacture or market those goods, since the use was on a different class of products and did not amount to use of another&#039;s brand name for the relevant exempted goods; the denial was unsustainable. A demand also could not be upheld on a fresh ground, namely that the brand related to a foreign company, when that allegation was not stated in the show cause notice; the demand on that basis failed. The assessee was therefore held entitled to the exemption and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:47:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153456" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (6) TMI 456 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116458</link>
      <description>SSI exemption could not be denied merely because the assessee used another person&#039;s brand name on cakes and pastries where that other person did not manufacture or market those goods, since the use was on a different class of products and did not amount to use of another&#039;s brand name for the relevant exempted goods; the denial was unsustainable. A demand also could not be upheld on a fresh ground, namely that the brand related to a foreign company, when that allegation was not stated in the show cause notice; the demand on that basis failed. The assessee was therefore held entitled to the exemption and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116458</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>