<?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 (7) TMI 567 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204429</link>
    <description>Small-scale industry exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. is unavailable where specified goods bear another person&#039;s brand or trade name. The brand-name definition covers any mark indicating a trade connection, and the assessee must prove strict fulfilment of every exemption condition, including that the names are common to multiple manufacturers where such a claim is made. On the stated facts, prior declaration and use of the same names by another manufacturer defeated the exemption claim. Cum-duty valuation and penalty required fresh determination because they had not been considered and the appellate record was inadequate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Jun 2013 14:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=177965" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 567 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204429</link>
      <description>Small-scale industry exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. is unavailable where specified goods bear another person&#039;s brand or trade name. The brand-name definition covers any mark indicating a trade connection, and the assessee must prove strict fulfilment of every exemption condition, including that the names are common to multiple manufacturers where such a claim is made. On the stated facts, prior declaration and use of the same names by another manufacturer defeated the exemption claim. Cum-duty valuation and penalty required fresh determination because they had not been considered and the appellate record was inadequate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204429</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>