<?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>Court Rejects Chewing Tobacco Exemption Claim; Branded vs. Unbranded Argument Deemed Misconceived and Untenable.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=26155</link>
    <description>Claim of exemption - chewing Tobacco - the contention proceeds on the premise that the branded goods belonging to third party only would be treated as branded and insofar as goods sold under brand name belonging to the assessee are concerned, they have to be treated as unbranded. This contention is clearly misconceived and untenable - SC</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sun, 29 Nov 2015 23:06:27 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Nov 2015 23:06:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=406929" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Court Rejects Chewing Tobacco Exemption Claim; Branded vs. Unbranded Argument Deemed Misconceived and Untenable.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=26155</link>
      <description>Claim of exemption - chewing Tobacco - the contention proceeds on the premise that the branded goods belonging to third party only would be treated as branded and insofar as goods sold under brand name belonging to the assessee are concerned, they have to be treated as unbranded. This contention is clearly misconceived and untenable - SC</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Sun, 29 Nov 2015 23:06:27 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=26155</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>