<?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>2010 (4) TMI 627 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201371</link>
    <description>Clearance values for goods bearing another&#039;s brand name were held not to be added to the manufacturer&#039;s aggregate clearances for exemption purposes where the goods had already suffered duty at the full rate and were manufactured by the appellant. The notification was applied on the basis that exemption was available for clearances from a factory by one or more manufacturers, and the disputed inclusion of brand-name owners&#039; clearances was found to have no legal basis on the facts considered. The objectionable observation directing such inclusion was therefore set aside, and the refund consequence in favour of the appellant followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:29:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=174983" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 627 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201371</link>
      <description>Clearance values for goods bearing another&#039;s brand name were held not to be added to the manufacturer&#039;s aggregate clearances for exemption purposes where the goods had already suffered duty at the full rate and were manufactured by the appellant. The notification was applied on the basis that exemption was available for clearances from a factory by one or more manufacturers, and the disputed inclusion of brand-name owners&#039; clearances was found to have no legal basis on the facts considered. The objectionable observation directing such inclusion was therefore set aside, and the refund consequence in favour of the appellant followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 27 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=201371</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>