<?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 485 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366749</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi upheld the appellants&#039; entitlement to the Small Scale Industry (SSI) exemption and resolved the valuation dispute in their favor. The denial of SSI exemption was deemed unsustainable as the brand name was registered in the appellants&#039; name from May 2005 onwards, acquired as a business asset from a previous corporation. The valuation dispute favored the appellants, rejecting the comparison of their product to renowned brands like Philips and emphasizing the unique market position of &quot;BESTON.&quot; The impugned order was set aside, and the penalty on the appellant&#039;s Director was revoked.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 11 Sep 2018 08:09:22 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=533784" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (9) TMI 485 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366749</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi upheld the appellants&#039; entitlement to the Small Scale Industry (SSI) exemption and resolved the valuation dispute in their favor. The denial of SSI exemption was deemed unsustainable as the brand name was registered in the appellants&#039; name from May 2005 onwards, acquired as a business asset from a previous corporation. The valuation dispute favored the appellants, rejecting the comparison of their product to renowned brands like Philips and emphasizing the unique market position of &quot;BESTON.&quot; The impugned order was set aside, and the penalty on the appellant&#039;s Director was revoked.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366749</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>