<?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>2016 (1) TMI 845 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271053</link>
    <description>Printed leaflets not marketed or traded as goods available to the general public did not satisfy the test for branded goods, so their turnover was required to be included in the aggregate computation for SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE. The remaining disputes concerning exclusion of turnover, deemed export treatment, separate manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods, and CENVAT credit relief were not finally resolved and were remanded for de novo adjudication. The authority was directed to examine the appellant&#039;s claims and relevant precedent on evidence, grant a reasonable hearing, and issue a speaking order; penalty was not to be imposed in the remand proceedings, while duty and interest, if payable, were left to be determined in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Jan 2016 22:46:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=414119" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 845 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271053</link>
      <description>Printed leaflets not marketed or traded as goods available to the general public did not satisfy the test for branded goods, so their turnover was required to be included in the aggregate computation for SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE. The remaining disputes concerning exclusion of turnover, deemed export treatment, separate manufacture of dutiable and exempted goods, and CENVAT credit relief were not finally resolved and were remanded for de novo adjudication. The authority was directed to examine the appellant&#039;s claims and relevant precedent on evidence, grant a reasonable hearing, and issue a speaking order; penalty was not to be imposed in the remand proceedings, while duty and interest, if payable, were left to be determined in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271053</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>