<?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>2006 (5) TMI 213 - CESTAT,MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117584</link>
    <description>In a stay application, interim relief depended on a prima facie case on classification, exemption entitlement and notification coverage. The Tribunal found that the product was not shown prima facie to be classifiable as embroidery thread/yarn for purposes of Notification No. 1/93, and the brand name objection was also not prima facie displaced because permission to use the mark was not established. It further noted that Notification No. 35/95 excluded sewing thread and that prima facie eligibility was not made out. Limited stay was therefore granted only on partial pre-deposit, with the balance demand and penalty kept in abeyance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 11:57:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=154581" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (5) TMI 213 - CESTAT,MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117584</link>
      <description>In a stay application, interim relief depended on a prima facie case on classification, exemption entitlement and notification coverage. The Tribunal found that the product was not shown prima facie to be classifiable as embroidery thread/yarn for purposes of Notification No. 1/93, and the brand name objection was also not prima facie displaced because permission to use the mark was not established. It further noted that Notification No. 35/95 excluded sewing thread and that prima facie eligibility was not made out. Limited stay was therefore granted only on partial pre-deposit, with the balance demand and penalty kept in abeyance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117584</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>