<?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>2018 (3) TMI 909 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357206</link>
    <description>The mark &#039;BC&#039; on the medicines was treated as a house mark rather than a brand name because it served only to indicate the manufacturer and did not identify the goods as bought or sold under that mark. On that basis, the conditions for denying small scale industry exemption were not met, and the assessee remained entitled to exemption under Notification No. 175/86.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=513691" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (3) TMI 909 - CESTAT, ALLAHABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357206</link>
      <description>The mark &#039;BC&#039; on the medicines was treated as a house mark rather than a brand name because it served only to indicate the manufacturer and did not identify the goods as bought or sold under that mark. On that basis, the conditions for denying small scale industry exemption were not met, and the assessee remained entitled to exemption under Notification No. 175/86.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=357206</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>