<?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 (3) TMI 1737 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278184</link>
    <description>SSI exemption cannot be denied merely because goods are sold under a brand name that is not owned or registered in the name of any particular person. Where the record shows no evidence of proprietary ownership by anyone, and the brand name is available for use by anybody, the exemption remains available. The Board circular and earlier tribunal decisions supported this position, and the disallowance was therefore set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Jan 2019 06:58:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=553292" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (3) TMI 1737 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278184</link>
      <description>SSI exemption cannot be denied merely because goods are sold under a brand name that is not owned or registered in the name of any particular person. Where the record shows no evidence of proprietary ownership by anyone, and the brand name is available for use by anybody, the exemption remains available. The Board circular and earlier tribunal decisions supported this position, and the disallowance was therefore set aside in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278184</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>