<?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>2017 (4) TMI 740 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341770</link>
    <description>Small scale exemption was upheld for heating elements cleared under the mark Calrod because the department failed to prove that the brand belonged to another person. The words &quot;Marketed by Elpro International&quot; on the label did not, by themselves, establish Elpro&#039;s ownership of the brand, and the record showed that the appellant had consistently represented Calrod as its own brand name. On limitation, the demand was barred because the appellant had disclosed its activity and classification list to the department, so there was no suppression of material facts to justify the extended period. The exemption claim was therefore accepted and the adverse order could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Apr 2017 17:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=466079" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 740 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341770</link>
      <description>Small scale exemption was upheld for heating elements cleared under the mark Calrod because the department failed to prove that the brand belonged to another person. The words &quot;Marketed by Elpro International&quot; on the label did not, by themselves, establish Elpro&#039;s ownership of the brand, and the record showed that the appellant had consistently represented Calrod as its own brand name. On limitation, the demand was barred because the appellant had disclosed its activity and classification list to the department, so there was no suppression of material facts to justify the extended period. The exemption claim was therefore accepted and the adverse order could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341770</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>