<?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 (7) TMI 82 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794196</link>
    <description>Controlled job-work manufacture of branded bottled water required the value of goods made by job workers to be clubbed with the appellant&#039;s turnover for SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE, because the arrangement functioned as a principal-manufacturer model and the job workers were not independent marketers. Once the turnover threshold was crossed, exemption was unavailable. Suppression of the franchise and job-work arrangement justified invocation of the extended limitation period, so the excise demand was not time-barred. The consequential interest and statutory penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2026 08:07:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=909583" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 82 - CESTAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794196</link>
      <description>Controlled job-work manufacture of branded bottled water required the value of goods made by job workers to be clubbed with the appellant&#039;s turnover for SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE, because the arrangement functioned as a principal-manufacturer model and the job workers were not independent marketers. Once the turnover threshold was crossed, exemption was unavailable. Suppression of the franchise and job-work arrangement justified invocation of the extended limitation period, so the excise demand was not time-barred. The consequential interest and statutory penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794196</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>