<?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>2005 (6) TMI 15 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=907</link>
    <description>Consolidated private records, supplier and customer statements, parallel invoices, fictitious billing and seizure evidence were treated as sufficient to establish clandestine production and removal of sewing threads, with the duty demand and penalties sustained against the assessees. The Tribunal also accepted denial of small-scale industry exemption where use of another person&#039;s brand name was proved, and sustained the related demands and penalties for those units. However, where the adjudication order did not record a clear finding that M/s. Power used another&#039;s brand name, the demand and penalties against that unit were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 18:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=40336" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (6) TMI 15 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=907</link>
      <description>Consolidated private records, supplier and customer statements, parallel invoices, fictitious billing and seizure evidence were treated as sufficient to establish clandestine production and removal of sewing threads, with the duty demand and penalties sustained against the assessees. The Tribunal also accepted denial of small-scale industry exemption where use of another person&#039;s brand name was proved, and sustained the related demands and penalties for those units. However, where the adjudication order did not record a clear finding that M/s. Power used another&#039;s brand name, the demand and penalties against that unit were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jun 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=907</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>