<?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>2006 (11) TMI 5 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=865</link>
    <description>A small-scale exemption tied to specified goods was unavailable where those goods bore the brand name of another person who was not eligible for the exemption in respect of those goods. The notification was treated as goods-specific, and the insertion of paragraph 7 by later amendment withdrew the benefit when the specified goods carried the brand name or trade name of an ineligible person. The brand owner&#039;s status as a trader in a different line of activity did not make the exemption available for the goods in question. The main exemption issue was decided in favour of Revenue, while the limitation question was remitted for fresh consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40299" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (11) TMI 5 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=865</link>
      <description>A small-scale exemption tied to specified goods was unavailable where those goods bore the brand name of another person who was not eligible for the exemption in respect of those goods. The notification was treated as goods-specific, and the insertion of paragraph 7 by later amendment withdrew the benefit when the specified goods carried the brand name or trade name of an ineligible person. The brand owner&#039;s status as a trader in a different line of activity did not make the exemption available for the goods in question. The main exemption issue was decided in favour of Revenue, while the limitation question was remitted for fresh consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=865</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>