<?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 658 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349503</link>
    <description>SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2002 was available because the exemption bar applies only where the goods bear the brand name or trade name, registered or not, of another person. On inspection of the machine label, the Court found that it showed the respondent&#039;s own name and did not display the other entity&#039;s mark &quot;SAMS&quot;. Accepting the concurrent factual finding that the machines were represented as manufactured by the respondent, the Court treated the Supreme Court authorities on similar SSI exemption disputes as directly applicable. The respondent was therefore entitled to the exemption, and the demand and penalty could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=492716" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (10) TMI 658 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349503</link>
      <description>SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2002 was available because the exemption bar applies only where the goods bear the brand name or trade name, registered or not, of another person. On inspection of the machine label, the Court found that it showed the respondent&#039;s own name and did not display the other entity&#039;s mark &quot;SAMS&quot;. Accepting the concurrent factual finding that the machines were represented as manufactured by the respondent, the Court treated the Supreme Court authorities on similar SSI exemption disputes as directly applicable. The respondent was therefore entitled to the exemption, and the demand and penalty could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Sep 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=349503</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>