<?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>1993 (12) TMI 58 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43719</link>
    <description>A challenge was raised to a notification withdrawing small scale industry exemption for specified goods bearing the brand name or trade name of a person not entitled to the exemption. The High Court found that the earlier exemption scheme treated affixing another&#039;s brand name as not changing the identity of the manufacturer, and that the impugned notification singled out only small scale units supplying branded goods to large industrial houses while leaving other similarly placed units unaffected. It further noted that brand marking did not amount to manufacture and did not rationally advance the stated objects of preventing duty avoidance or protecting small scale industries. The classification was therefore arbitrary and failed the test of permissible classification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Jun 2010 16:17:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=82248" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1993 (12) TMI 58 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43719</link>
      <description>A challenge was raised to a notification withdrawing small scale industry exemption for specified goods bearing the brand name or trade name of a person not entitled to the exemption. The High Court found that the earlier exemption scheme treated affixing another&#039;s brand name as not changing the identity of the manufacturer, and that the impugned notification singled out only small scale units supplying branded goods to large industrial houses while leaving other similarly placed units unaffected. It further noted that brand marking did not amount to manufacture and did not rationally advance the stated objects of preventing duty avoidance or protecting small scale industries. The classification was therefore arbitrary and failed the test of permissible classification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Dec 1993 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=43719</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>