<?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 (8) TMI 62 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346004</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision on both issues, emphasizing the inapplicability of SSI exemption when goods bear another brand name and finding no evidence of undervaluation in the transactions between the appellants and the related person.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Sep 2017 17:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=484037" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (8) TMI 62 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346004</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision on both issues, emphasizing the inapplicability of SSI exemption when goods bear another brand name and finding no evidence of undervaluation in the transactions between the appellants and the related person.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346004</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>