<?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 647 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333627</link>
    <description>Goods bearing only a &quot;marketed by&quot; description do not, without more, amount to use of another person&#039;s brand name for denying SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/05-CE. The Tribunal held that the exemption is unavailable only where the label connects the product with another person as a brand or trade name in relation to manufacture and quality; a mere marketing indication is insufficient where the label does not show manufacture under that brand. On those facts, the label was treated as a marketing reference, so SSI exemption was available and the duty demand, interest and penalty could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Oct 2016 09:40:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=445256" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 647 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333627</link>
      <description>Goods bearing only a &quot;marketed by&quot; description do not, without more, amount to use of another person&#039;s brand name for denying SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/05-CE. The Tribunal held that the exemption is unavailable only where the label connects the product with another person as a brand or trade name in relation to manufacture and quality; a mere marketing indication is insufficient where the label does not show manufacture under that brand. On those facts, the label was treated as a marketing reference, so SSI exemption was available and the duty demand, interest and penalty could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333627</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>