<?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 (10) TMI 114 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348959</link>
    <description>The appellant, a manufacturing concern, was found eligible for Small Scale Industry (SSI) exemption while using a brand name owned by another partnership firm. The tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the SSI exemption, and any penalties imposed were set aside. The validity of the assignment deed and the entitlement of the appellants to use the brand name were upheld, leading to the dismissal of penalties for alleged fraudulent practices and irregular availment of exemption. Penalties imposed on the appellant and related individuals were set aside, and the appeal in their favor was allowed with consequential reliefs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Jan 2018 12:41:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=491399" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 114 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348959</link>
      <description>The appellant, a manufacturing concern, was found eligible for Small Scale Industry (SSI) exemption while using a brand name owned by another partnership firm. The tribunal held that the appellant was entitled to the SSI exemption, and any penalties imposed were set aside. The validity of the assignment deed and the entitlement of the appellants to use the brand name were upheld, leading to the dismissal of penalties for alleged fraudulent practices and irregular availment of exemption. Penalties imposed on the appellant and related individuals were set aside, and the appeal in their favor was allowed with consequential reliefs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=348959</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>