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 readymade garments manufactured and sold without a brand name remained exempt from excise duty under the notification, even though the manufacturer held a registered trade mark.
Analysis: The notification exempted articles of ready-to-wear apparel falling under Item 22D, but withheld the exemption only from articles sold under a brand name, meaning a name or trade mark registered under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The operative test was the character of the goods sold, not the mere fact that the manufacturer possessed a registered trade mark. Goods manufactured and marketed without any brand name were therefore within the exemption, and the manufacturer was not required to secure de-registration of the trade mark before claiming that exemption.
Conclusion: The exemption applied to garments cleared without any brand name, notwithstanding the manufacturer's registered trade mark, and the demand to the contrary was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded on the excise exemption issue, and the assessee was entitled to clear the unbranded goods without payment of duty.
Ratio Decidendi: For an exemption that turns on whether goods are sold under a brand name, liability depends on whether the goods themselves are sold under that brand name, not on whether the manufacturer incidentally owns a registered trade mark.