<?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 the goods bear a brand name previously declared and used by another manufacturer, because the notification bars specified goods carrying another person&#039;s brand or trade name and the assessee must strictly prove compliance with every exemption condition. The record noted prior use of the same brand names by another manufacturer, while the respondents produced no material to show that the marks were common brand names. The note also records that cum-duty pricing and penalty were not examined at the appellate stage, so those valuation and penalty issues were remanded for fresh consideration.</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 the goods bear a brand name previously declared and used by another manufacturer, because the notification bars specified goods carrying another person&#039;s brand or trade name and the assessee must strictly prove compliance with every exemption condition. The record noted prior use of the same brand names by another manufacturer, while the respondents produced no material to show that the marks were common brand names. The note also records that cum-duty pricing and penalty were not examined at the appellate stage, so those valuation and penalty issues were remanded for fresh consideration.</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>