<?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 (5) TMI 561 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342823</link>
    <description>An SSI unit manufacturing both own-brand goods and third-party branded goods remained entitled to exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE for its own-brand clearances. The notification was construed independently for home production, and clearances made for others under their brand names, where duty was paid and Cenvat credit was availed, were treated as outside the exemption scheme. Applying the earlier Supreme Court authority, the third-party branded clearances did not affect eligibility for exemption on the assessee&#039;s own goods. The denial of the benefit was therefore unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 May 2017 07:44:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=468455" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 561 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342823</link>
      <description>An SSI unit manufacturing both own-brand goods and third-party branded goods remained entitled to exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE for its own-brand clearances. The notification was construed independently for home production, and clearances made for others under their brand names, where duty was paid and Cenvat credit was availed, were treated as outside the exemption scheme. Applying the earlier Supreme Court authority, the third-party branded clearances did not affect eligibility for exemption on the assessee&#039;s own goods. The denial of the benefit was therefore unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=342823</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>