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>Tribunal rules in favor of company in brand name dispute, qualifies for small scale exemption</h1> <h3>CCE Versus Ace Auto Co. Pvt. Ltd.</h3> CCE Versus Ace Auto Co. Pvt. Ltd. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the excisable goods manufactured by a company were bearing the brand name of another person, making them ineligible for small scale exemption.Analysis:Issue 1: Brand Name Eligibility for ExemptionThe main issue in this appeal was whether the excisable goods manufactured by the company were bearing the brand name of another person, thus disqualifying them from the benefit of small scale exemption. The Revenue contended that the goods were embossed with the symbol and logo 'Tata' along with the company's own brand name 'ACE,' leading consumers to assume a connection with the Tata group of companies. The Revenue argued that the usage of the name 'Tata' created an impression of association with the Tata group, making the company ineligible for the exemption. However, the company argued that the brand name 'TATA ACE' indicated that the product was specific to their company and not part of the Tata group. The Tribunal examined the definition of brand name under the relevant notification and concluded that the brand name used did not belong to another person, thus not falling under the purview of the notification. Citing precedents where similar brand name distinctions were upheld, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal and disposed of the cross objections filed by the company.Key Points:- The goods bore the brand name 'TATA ACE,' not just 'Tata.'- Exemption not available if goods bear the brand name of another person.- Definition of brand name under the notification considered.- Tribunal found no evidence that the brand name belonged to another person.- Precedents cited where similar brand name differentiations were upheld.- Tribunal rejected Revenue's appeal and disposed of company's cross objections.This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the legal issues involved and the Tribunal's decision regarding the eligibility of the company for small scale exemption based on the brand name used on the manufactured goods.
TaxTMI 