<?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 (8) TMI 930 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172750</link>
    <description>Small scale exemption is unavailable where product labels carry another person&#039;s brand name or even a part of it that indicates a trade connection; on that basis, goods marked with the abbreviation &quot;ARR&quot; were treated as branded and the exemption was denied for the first period, with duty and interest confirmed but penalty set aside because the dispute was debatable. By contrast, a label reading &quot;Mfrs. ARR Enterprises&quot; was treated as a manufacturer&#039;s name, not a brand name, where the name was only disclosed as required and no brand indication appeared. The exemption was therefore available for the subsequent period.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 28 Aug 2015 14:08:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=395153" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (8) TMI 930 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172750</link>
      <description>Small scale exemption is unavailable where product labels carry another person&#039;s brand name or even a part of it that indicates a trade connection; on that basis, goods marked with the abbreviation &quot;ARR&quot; were treated as branded and the exemption was denied for the first period, with duty and interest confirmed but penalty set aside because the dispute was debatable. By contrast, a label reading &quot;Mfrs. ARR Enterprises&quot; was treated as a manufacturer&#039;s name, not a brand name, where the name was only disclosed as required and no brand indication appeared. The exemption was therefore available for the subsequent period.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172750</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>