Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 assessee was entitled to small-scale industry exemption under Notifications Nos. 1/93-CE and 16/97-CE when the goods bore the mark 'TATA ACE', and whether use of 'TATA' as part of the brand indicated a connection with another person so as to attract the exclusion in the notifications.
Analysis: Clause 4 of Notification No. 1/93-CE and the corresponding provision in Notification No. 16/97-CE deny exemption to specified goods bearing the brand name or trade name of another person. The expression 'brand name' in Explanation IX covers any name or mark used to indicate a connection in the course of trade between the goods and some person using that name or mark. The controlling principle is strict compliance with the exemption notification. Where an assessee affixes another person's brand name on its goods with the intention of indicating a trade connection, the exemption is lost. On the facts, the mark 'TATA' did not belong to the assessee, and its use was not merely fortuitous or purely descriptive; it signified a connection with a Tata company and projected the goods as associated with that company.
Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the exemption, and the bar under Clause 4 read with Explanation IX was attracted. The view taken by the Tribunal was incorrect and the Revenue succeeded.