<?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 (10) TMI 573 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333553</link>
    <description>The Delhi HC held that no substantial question of law arose from the Revenue&#039;s challenge to denial of Small Scale Industry exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. The dispute turned on factual findings of the appellate authority and Tribunal, including the effect of sticker affixation and entitlement to SSI exemption. The Court also found it improper to allow the Revenue to raise, nearly eight years after the show cause notice, a plea that the goods were procured from a person using a registered trademark when that ground had not been raised before the Tribunal. The appeal therefore failed on merits and was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Oct 2016 18:33:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=445078" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 573 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333553</link>
      <description>The Delhi HC held that no substantial question of law arose from the Revenue&#039;s challenge to denial of Small Scale Industry exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. The dispute turned on factual findings of the appellate authority and Tribunal, including the effect of sticker affixation and entitlement to SSI exemption. The Court also found it improper to allow the Revenue to raise, nearly eight years after the show cause notice, a plea that the goods were procured from a person using a registered trademark when that ground had not been raised before the Tribunal. The appeal therefore failed on merits and was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333553</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>