<?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>2007 (8) TMI 239 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3558</link>
    <description>SSI exemption could not be denied merely because the assessee used its own logo and a manufacturer&#039;s plate; the bar applies only where another&#039;s brand name is used to trade on established goodwill, which was not shown. Post-clearance installation charges were not part of the assessable value because the installation activity occurred after manufacture and clearance, and the related demand was also unsupported by the notice. The remaining duty, credit and penalty issues required re-examination, including credit on pre-registration receipts and correct quantification after admissible abatement and credit, so those matters were remitted for fresh adjudication with penalty to be reconsidered accordingly.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 19:54:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=42910" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (8) TMI 239 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3558</link>
      <description>SSI exemption could not be denied merely because the assessee used its own logo and a manufacturer&#039;s plate; the bar applies only where another&#039;s brand name is used to trade on established goodwill, which was not shown. Post-clearance installation charges were not part of the assessable value because the installation activity occurred after manufacture and clearance, and the related demand was also unsupported by the notice. The remaining duty, credit and penalty issues required re-examination, including credit on pre-registration receipts and correct quantification after admissible abatement and credit, so those matters were remitted for fresh adjudication with penalty to be reconsidered accordingly.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=3558</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>