TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether goods bearing only the words indicating that they are "marketed by" another company amount to use of the other company's brand name so as to deny SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/05-CE dated 1.3.2005.
Analysis: The exemption is denied only where the assessee uses another person's brand name or trade name in a manner that connects the product with that person in relation to manufacture and quality. A mere indication on the label that the goods are "marketed by" another entity does not, by itself, amount to use of that entity's brand name, particularly where the label does not otherwise show that the goods are manufactured under that brand. Following the earlier Tribunal view on similar labels and distinguishing the cited Supreme Court decision on different facts, the label in question was held to be only a marketing indication.
Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/05-CE dated 1.3.2005 and the duty demand, interest and penalty could not stand.
Final Conclusion: The denial of SSI exemption was unsustainable because a mere "marketed by" description did not amount to use of another person's brand name on the facts found.
Ratio Decidendi: A label that merely states that goods are marketed by another party, without using that party's brand name as such, does not constitute use of another's brand name for the purpose of denying SSI exemption.
TaxTMI 
