<?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>2023 (12) TMI 950 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447266</link>
    <description>The CESTAT New Delhi dismissed appeals in a case involving clandestine removal of paints and varnishes manufactured under brand names REAL and NICE. The appellants were found manufacturing goods under third-party brand names without proper authorization, making them ineligible for SSI exemption. The tribunal upheld findings that goods were cleared without proper invoices, with 40% sold through informal receipts. An assignment deed claimed to authorize brand use was deemed an afterthought, being notarized after investigation commenced. The tribunal confirmed suppression of facts warranted extended five-year limitation period, and the show cause notice was issued within prescribed timeframe. Appeals were dismissed and penalties upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Dec 2023 09:40:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=736228" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (12) TMI 950 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447266</link>
      <description>The CESTAT New Delhi dismissed appeals in a case involving clandestine removal of paints and varnishes manufactured under brand names REAL and NICE. The appellants were found manufacturing goods under third-party brand names without proper authorization, making them ineligible for SSI exemption. The tribunal upheld findings that goods were cleared without proper invoices, with 40% sold through informal receipts. An assignment deed claimed to authorize brand use was deemed an afterthought, being notarized after investigation commenced. The tribunal confirmed suppression of facts warranted extended five-year limitation period, and the show cause notice was issued within prescribed timeframe. Appeals were dismissed and penalties upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447266</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>