<?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>2026 (1) TMI 1510 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785754</link>
    <description>Eligibility for SSI exemption turned on whether the manufacturing unit was located in a rural area; the tribunal found the adjudicating authority failed to require or specify necessary proof and that submitted documents were not shown to be forged, therefore the unit qualifies for exemption under the relevant notification and the demand is set aside on merits. On brand ownership and penalty, the tribunal held Revenue must prove ownership of the brands and that mens rea is required for imposing penalties; because proprietorship/directorship links between brand owners and the unit were undisputed, penalties and duty demand were quashed and appeals allowed with consequential relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Jan 2026 08:55:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=882588" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (1) TMI 1510 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785754</link>
      <description>Eligibility for SSI exemption turned on whether the manufacturing unit was located in a rural area; the tribunal found the adjudicating authority failed to require or specify necessary proof and that submitted documents were not shown to be forged, therefore the unit qualifies for exemption under the relevant notification and the demand is set aside on merits. On brand ownership and penalty, the tribunal held Revenue must prove ownership of the brands and that mens rea is required for imposing penalties; because proprietorship/directorship links between brand owners and the unit were undisputed, penalties and duty demand were quashed and appeals allowed with consequential relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785754</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>