Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessees were entitled to the benefit of the small scale exemption despite the department's challenge to the genuineness of the trade mark assignment and the absence of registration of the brand name.
Analysis: The transfer of the brand name was on record, and the Court declined to deny exemption merely because the consideration for the assignment appeared low or was paid later. Once the assignment was accepted, the department could not re-examine the adequacy of consideration to discredit the transfer. The absence of registration was also held to be immaterial, particularly when an application for transfer/registration had already been filed and the fact of such application was not disputed. Although the surrounding facts created doubt about the transaction, the department had still proceeded on the footing that the assessees were manufacturers, and there was no separate sustainable basis to deny the notification benefit solely on the alleged lack of genuineness of the assignment.
Conclusion: The assessees were entitled to the small scale exemption, and the duty demand and penalties were unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Once a trade mark assignment is accepted as existing, its validity for exemption purposes cannot be denied merely because the consideration appears inadequate or the transfer is not yet registered.