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 appellants were disentitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 on the ground that they used the brand name of another person, and whether the necessary factual findings regarding ownership of the brand name and the other person's ineligibility for exemption had been established.
Analysis: Para 7 of the notification excludes exemption only when the manufacturer uses on the specified goods the brand name of another person who is not eligible for the exemption. The expression "brand name" in Explanation VIII is tied to use in relation to the specified goods, but the decisive requirement is that the brand name must belong to another person in the relevant legal sense and that such other person must be shown to be ineligible for the concession. The record did not contain a finding that M/s. Doshi Electronics had the legal right to the brand name for use on wall clocks, nor a finding that they were themselves ineligible for the notification. In the absence of these foundational findings, invocation of para 7 could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The denial of exemption was unsustainable, and the matter required fresh adjudication after proper findings on ownership and eligibility.