<?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>2021 (1) TMI 503 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402911</link>
    <description>Clearances of goods manufactured by an independent job worker could not be clubbed with the appellant&#039;s clearances for denying SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE. The text applies the larger Bench principle that the job worker is the manufacturer for duty purposes, ownership of the goods is immaterial to levy, and liability remains with the job worker unless a specific notification shifts it. It also notes that the brand-name exclusion in the notification does not, by itself, treat goods as manufactured by another person. On those facts, the revenue&#039;s basis for clubbing was insufficient and denial of SSI exemption was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Jan 2021 21:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=633033" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (1) TMI 503 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402911</link>
      <description>Clearances of goods manufactured by an independent job worker could not be clubbed with the appellant&#039;s clearances for denying SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE. The text applies the larger Bench principle that the job worker is the manufacturer for duty purposes, ownership of the goods is immaterial to levy, and liability remains with the job worker unless a specific notification shifts it. It also notes that the brand-name exclusion in the notification does not, by itself, treat goods as manufactured by another person. On those facts, the revenue&#039;s basis for clubbing was insufficient and denial of SSI exemption was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402911</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>