<?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 (8) TMI 793 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365321</link>
    <description>A manufacturer claiming small-scale industries exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE must strictly satisfy its conditions, including that the goods do not bear the brand name or trade name of another person, whether registered or not. Goods cleared with another person&#039;s brand name fall outside the exemption, so the benefit was unavailable here. The same non-compliance also justified invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, because the assessee was required to verify brand ownership before availing the exemption. The confirmation of duty and penalties was sustained, and the appeals failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Aug 2018 07:08:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=530796" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (8) TMI 793 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365321</link>
      <description>A manufacturer claiming small-scale industries exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE must strictly satisfy its conditions, including that the goods do not bear the brand name or trade name of another person, whether registered or not. Goods cleared with another person&#039;s brand name fall outside the exemption, so the benefit was unavailable here. The same non-compliance also justified invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, because the assessee was required to verify brand ownership before availing the exemption. The confirmation of duty and penalties was sustained, and the appeals failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365321</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>