Just a moment...
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 SSI units manufacturing aerated water under a brand name belonging to another person were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE when the brand name owner was itself eligible for exemption and was manufacturing specified goods.
Analysis: The exemption notification was treated as goods-specific, with the controlling focus on whether the manufacturer of the specified goods was eligible for exemption in respect of those goods. Paragraph 7 of the amended scheme denied exemption where the brand name or trade name belonged to another person who was not eligible for the exemption. On the facts found, the brand name owner was itself an SSI unit eligible for the notification and was manufacturing specified goods, so the disqualification aimed at use of the brand of an ineligible person did not apply. The interpretation adopted by the Tribunal was consistent with the structure and purpose of the notification.
Conclusion: The assessees were entitled to the exemption, and the Revenue's appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Under a goods-specific small-scale exemption notification, use of another person's brand name does not disentitle the manufacturer where the brand name owner is itself eligible for the exemption in respect of the specified goods.