TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Invalid Brand Name Assignment Deeds Bar SSI Exemption: Tribunal Decision</h1> <h3>EU-MEDICAMENTS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE. MUMBAI-V</h3> EU-MEDICAMENTS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE. MUMBAI-V - TMI Issues:- Claim of SSI exemption for medicaments bearing another brand name- Validity of assignment deeds for brand names- Interpretation of SSI exemption notification condition 4Analysis:The case involved an appeal against a decision confirming a demand for duty, interest, and penalty on M/s Eu-Medicament for claiming Small Scale Industries (SSI) exemption for medicaments bearing the brand name of M/s Milichem Laboratories. The appellant argued that they had valid assignment deeds for the brand names, entitling them to the exemption. The Revenue contended that the assignment deeds were not effective as the trademarks were not registered during the relevant period.The Tribunal noted that the first assignment deed was executed after the relevant period, making the demand for duty valid for that period. For the subsequent period, the assignment deed stated that the assignment would take effect upon trademark registration. As the trademarks were not registered at the material time, the appellant did not own the brand names, violating condition 4 of the SSI exemption notification.Reference was made to a previous Tribunal case where a valid assignment deed existed at the time of goods clearance, entitling the appellant to the SSI exemption. However, in the present case, there was no assignment deed before a certain date, and the assignment was contingent upon trademark registration. As the trademarks were not registered, the appellant did not have ownership of the brand names. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, as the appellant did not meet the conditions for the SSI exemption.In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal, as the appellant did not have a valid assignment of brand names during the relevant period, rendering them ineligible for the SSI exemption. The decision was based on the interpretation of the assignment deeds and the conditions of the SSI exemption notification.
TaxTMI 