<?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 (11) TMI 622 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206390</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the mark &quot;Bharti Airtel&quot; on goods constituted a brand name, entitling the appellant to SSI exemption. It was determined that the goods marked with the name should be treated as branded, leading to the exclusion of clearances made to Bharti Airtel Ltd. from the aggregate value for SSI exemption. The Tribunal also found that clubbing branded and unbranded goods for duty calculation was unjustified. Penalties and interest on duty demand were set aside as there was no misdeclaration by the appellant, and the invocation of the extended period for demand and penalties was deemed unwarranted. The appeals were allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:08:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=179881" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (11) TMI 622 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206390</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the mark &quot;Bharti Airtel&quot; on goods constituted a brand name, entitling the appellant to SSI exemption. It was determined that the goods marked with the name should be treated as branded, leading to the exclusion of clearances made to Bharti Airtel Ltd. from the aggregate value for SSI exemption. The Tribunal also found that clubbing branded and unbranded goods for duty calculation was unjustified. Penalties and interest on duty demand were set aside as there was no misdeclaration by the appellant, and the invocation of the extended period for demand and penalties was deemed unwarranted. The appeals were allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Nov 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206390</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>