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 Rubber Hose Assembly cleared under the respondent's own brand name "DYNAFLOW" was disentitled to small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. on the ground that it was manufactured using technical specifications and know-how obtained for goods made for another person.
Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was denied only where the specified goods were affixed with the brand name or trade name of another person. The relevant condition in para 7 concerned brand name affixation and not the source of technical drawings, specifications, or manufacturing know-how. The hose assembly in question bore the respondent's own brand name, while the reference to Dunlop related only to the technical specifications used for manufacture of other goods. The mere fact that inputs may have carried another name did not amount to affixation of another person's brand name on the specified goods.
Conclusion: The hose assembly was not hit by the brand-name restriction in the notification and remained eligible for the small scale exemption. The revenue's appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Disqualification under the small scale exemption applies only when the specified goods themselves are affixed with another person's brand name or trade name, and not merely because they are manufactured with technical specifications or know-how associated with another entity.