<?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 (9) TMI 367 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116528</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore upheld the adjudicating authority&#039;s decision to drop proceedings against M/s. Sri Industries in a case involving allegations of misusing the brand name &#039;Stay on&#039; on their Label Stock product. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of substantial evidence linking the raw material branding to the finished product, highlighting the importance of factual considerations over mere statements. The decision underscored the significance of a thorough assessment of facts and balanced decision-making, ultimately dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal and upholding the adjudicating authority&#039;s order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:54:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153526" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (9) TMI 367 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116528</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore upheld the adjudicating authority&#039;s decision to drop proceedings against M/s. Sri Industries in a case involving allegations of misusing the brand name &#039;Stay on&#039; on their Label Stock product. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of substantial evidence linking the raw material branding to the finished product, highlighting the importance of factual considerations over mere statements. The decision underscored the significance of a thorough assessment of facts and balanced decision-making, ultimately dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeal and upholding the adjudicating authority&#039;s order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116528</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>