<?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 (1) TMI 1539 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198848</link>
    <description>Small Scale Industry exemption was unavailable for gas stoves sold under the marks &quot;Mitsubishi&quot; and &quot;Suzuki&quot; because the assessee could not prove ownership of those brand names, so the duty demand on those clearances was sustained. The exemption was available for stoves cleared under the assessee&#039;s own brands &quot;Advanta&quot; and &quot;Advanta Green&quot; along with the BPCL and HPCL logos, as they were marketed through those outlets in line with the applicable exemption principle, and proportionate penalty relief followed the duty finding. The discussion applies the ownership-of-brand test and distinguishes third-party brand goods from co-branded outlet sales.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 10 Feb 2018 07:28:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=508367" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (1) TMI 1539 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198848</link>
      <description>Small Scale Industry exemption was unavailable for gas stoves sold under the marks &quot;Mitsubishi&quot; and &quot;Suzuki&quot; because the assessee could not prove ownership of those brand names, so the duty demand on those clearances was sustained. The exemption was available for stoves cleared under the assessee&#039;s own brands &quot;Advanta&quot; and &quot;Advanta Green&quot; along with the BPCL and HPCL logos, as they were marketed through those outlets in line with the applicable exemption principle, and proportionate penalty relief followed the duty finding. The discussion applies the ownership-of-brand test and distinguishes third-party brand goods from co-branded outlet sales.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=198848</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>