<?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>2000 (5) TMI 85 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49817</link>
    <description>Cutting imported filter paper into membrane disc filters was held to amount to manufacture because the process created a distinct product with a new name, character and use, making the goods classifiable as excisable membrane disc filters under sub-heading 8421.00. Use of another person&#039;s brand name on the goods or their packing was treated as sufficient to deny small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86, since the brand owner was not shown to have assigned the name to the assessee and the clearances were not eligible for that benefit. Non-disclosure of the brand use also justified invocation of the extended period of limitation. The duty demand was sustained, with only a limited reduction in penalty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:29:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88297" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (5) TMI 85 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49817</link>
      <description>Cutting imported filter paper into membrane disc filters was held to amount to manufacture because the process created a distinct product with a new name, character and use, making the goods classifiable as excisable membrane disc filters under sub-heading 8421.00. Use of another person&#039;s brand name on the goods or their packing was treated as sufficient to deny small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86, since the brand owner was not shown to have assigned the name to the assessee and the clearances were not eligible for that benefit. Non-disclosure of the brand use also justified invocation of the extended period of limitation. The duty demand was sustained, with only a limited reduction in penalty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 May 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49817</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>