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 the respondent was entitled to SSI exemption when it used the brand name "ASOKA-R" pursuant to an arrangement following dissolution of the original partnership firm, or whether such use attracted the bar under paragraph 4 of the SSI exemption notification as use of another person's brand name.
Analysis: The original partnership firm had been dissolved and the right to use the common brand name "ASOKA" had been settled among the partners for different territories, with distinctive suffixes used by each concern. The respondent's use of "ASOKA-R" was found to be traceable to that assignment arrangement and was also recognised by the trade mark authorities. On those facts, the brand name could not be treated as the brand name of another person so as to deny the SSI exemption.
Conclusion: The respondent was eligible for SSI exemption and the bar under paragraph 4 of the notification was not attracted.
Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed and the impugned order granting SSI benefit to the respondent was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a brand name is validly assigned or settled among former partners on dissolution and the assessee uses it within the allotted arrangement with a distinguishing suffix, such use is not use of another person's brand name for the purpose of denying SSI exemption.