<?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>2013 (8) TMI 789 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236497</link>
    <description>SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE and Notification No. 1/93-CE was unavailable where the goods were cleared under another person&#039;s brand name. The record showed that the diesel exhaust purifiers were sold in packages bearing the HONEYCAT brand of a foreign company, and the agreement relied on by the assessee was not shown to cover the disputed period. The notifications barred exemption when specified goods carried the brand name or trade name of another person, and affixation on the carton or package did not avoid the bar because the goods were cleared in those packages. The proviso to paragraph 7 was held inapplicable on the facts, and the limitation plea was not entertained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Jan 2014 12:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=198904" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 789 - CESTAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236497</link>
      <description>SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE and Notification No. 1/93-CE was unavailable where the goods were cleared under another person&#039;s brand name. The record showed that the diesel exhaust purifiers were sold in packages bearing the HONEYCAT brand of a foreign company, and the agreement relied on by the assessee was not shown to cover the disputed period. The notifications barred exemption when specified goods carried the brand name or trade name of another person, and affixation on the carton or package did not avoid the bar because the goods were cleared in those packages. The proviso to paragraph 7 was held inapplicable on the facts, and the limitation plea was not entertained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Aug 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=236497</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>