<?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 (3) TMI 480 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325296</link>
    <description>The amended SSI exemption notification required clearances of readymade garments bearing another person&#039;s brand name, made between 01.04.2001 and 30.04.2001, to be counted in computing the aggregate value for the 2001-2002 exemption threshold, and the unambiguous amendment controlled the computation. The limitation plea also failed because the assessee obtained registration only on 29.05.2001, the department could not be presumed aware of the April 2001 clearances, and in a self-assessment regime the assessee was bound to disclose the relevant facts. The demand was therefore sustained and the appeal dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2016 18:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=420260" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 480 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325296</link>
      <description>The amended SSI exemption notification required clearances of readymade garments bearing another person&#039;s brand name, made between 01.04.2001 and 30.04.2001, to be counted in computing the aggregate value for the 2001-2002 exemption threshold, and the unambiguous amendment controlled the computation. The limitation plea also failed because the assessee obtained registration only on 29.05.2001, the department could not be presumed aware of the April 2001 clearances, and in a self-assessment regime the assessee was bound to disclose the relevant facts. The demand was therefore sustained and the appeal dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325296</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>