<?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>2011 (12) TMI 436 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246327</link>
    <description>The appellant was found ineligible for small-scale exemption while manufacturing branded mineral water under the brand name &quot;Bisleri.&quot; The Tribunal determined that the appellant was a manufacturer of the final excisable product, not merely a job worker, and was liable to pay duty. The extended period of limitation was upheld, and the denial of the small-scale exemption was justified. The majority decision dismissed the appeal, while a dissenting opinion and a third opinion favored the appellant, suggesting the demand was time-barred and allowing the benefit of Modvat credit. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 Apr 2014 16:01:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=352948" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (12) TMI 436 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246327</link>
      <description>The appellant was found ineligible for small-scale exemption while manufacturing branded mineral water under the brand name &quot;Bisleri.&quot; The Tribunal determined that the appellant was a manufacturer of the final excisable product, not merely a job worker, and was liable to pay duty. The extended period of limitation was upheld, and the denial of the small-scale exemption was justified. The majority decision dismissed the appeal, while a dissenting opinion and a third opinion favored the appellant, suggesting the demand was time-barred and allowing the benefit of Modvat credit. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=246327</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>