<?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>2005 (10) TMI 167 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54780</link>
    <description>SSI exemption under Notifications No. 175/86 and No. 1/93 was examined on clubbing of clearances, brand-name restrictions and valuation. The analysis notes that related limited companies were to be treated as independent manufacturers during the currency of Notification No. 175/86, while clubbing could be applied from 1 April 1993 under Notification No. 1/93 on the facts found. It also treats trade code names used on flavours as brand identifiers of another person where they indicated trade connection, attracting the exemption bar. On valuation, undervaluation was not established without quantifiable evidence of price depression or flow-back, and the adopted assessable value was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:25:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93257" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (10) TMI 167 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54780</link>
      <description>SSI exemption under Notifications No. 175/86 and No. 1/93 was examined on clubbing of clearances, brand-name restrictions and valuation. The analysis notes that related limited companies were to be treated as independent manufacturers during the currency of Notification No. 175/86, while clubbing could be applied from 1 April 1993 under Notification No. 1/93 on the facts found. It also treats trade code names used on flavours as brand identifiers of another person where they indicated trade connection, attracting the exemption bar. On valuation, undervaluation was not established without quantifiable evidence of price depression or flow-back, and the adopted assessable value was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=54780</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>