<?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>2008 (11) TMI 243 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35404</link>
    <description>Classification of Ramtirth Brahmi Oil turned on whether &quot;Ramtirth&quot; was a house mark or a brand name. After remand, the Commissioner found that &quot;Ramtirth&quot; was only a house name and not a brand name, and no appeal was filed against that finding. That determination was followed in a later remand order. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the Revenue&#039;s challenge to classification under the competing sub-heading could not be sustained, and the Commissioner&#039;s classification was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2010 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73991" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (11) TMI 243 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35404</link>
      <description>Classification of Ramtirth Brahmi Oil turned on whether &quot;Ramtirth&quot; was a house mark or a brand name. After remand, the Commissioner found that &quot;Ramtirth&quot; was only a house name and not a brand name, and no appeal was filed against that finding. That determination was followed in a later remand order. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the Revenue&#039;s challenge to classification under the competing sub-heading could not be sustained, and the Commissioner&#039;s classification was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35404</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>