<?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 534 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117294</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, ruling that leaf Springs marked with specific brand names were not eligible for Small Scale Industries (SSI) benefit as unbranded goods. The Tribunal emphasized the obligation of SSI units to pay duty on goods labeled with the brand name of the relevant vehicle, and concluded that the Revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence to challenge the Commissioner&#039;s findings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2012 16:08:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154291" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 534 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117294</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, ruling that leaf Springs marked with specific brand names were not eligible for Small Scale Industries (SSI) benefit as unbranded goods. The Tribunal emphasized the obligation of SSI units to pay duty on goods labeled with the brand name of the relevant vehicle, and concluded that the Revenue failed to provide sufficient evidence to challenge the Commissioner&#039;s findings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117294</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>