<?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 (9) TMI 84 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366348</link>
    <description>Small Scale Industry exemption could not be denied on the footing that the assessee used another person&#039;s brand name where the mark was registered in the name of its controlling director and shareholder; that use was not treated as use of a third party&#039;s brand, so the Revenue&#039;s denial was set aside. Duty valuation based on MRP taken from an unrelated website was also held unsustainable because it was not supported by market enquiry or comparable quotations and did not reflect relevant market conditions; the valuation adjustment was therefore set aside. The appellants were granted relief, while the question of extended limitation was left undecided.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Sep 2018 12:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=532965" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 84 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366348</link>
      <description>Small Scale Industry exemption could not be denied on the footing that the assessee used another person&#039;s brand name where the mark was registered in the name of its controlling director and shareholder; that use was not treated as use of a third party&#039;s brand, so the Revenue&#039;s denial was set aside. Duty valuation based on MRP taken from an unrelated website was also held unsustainable because it was not supported by market enquiry or comparable quotations and did not reflect relevant market conditions; the valuation adjustment was therefore set aside. The appellants were granted relief, while the question of extended limitation was left undecided.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366348</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>