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 assessee was disentitled to exemption under Notification No. 175/86 on the ground that the goods were sold under the brand name "T-Series", said to belong to another person.
Analysis: Paragraph 7 of Notification No. 175/86 denies exemption only where a manufacturer affixes on the specified goods the brand name of another person who is not eligible for exemption. The evidence showed that the assessee had acquired the right to use the trade name "T-Series" for its products on payment and for the specified goods in question. The use was therefore not of a brand name belonging to another person in the sense contemplated by the notification. It was also recognised that use of the same brand name on different goods does not by itself attract the bar in the notification.
Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the benefit of the notification and the Revenue's objection failed.
Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected because the brand name restriction in the exemption notification was not attracted on the facts found.
Ratio Decidendi: Exemption under the brand-name restriction is denied only when the specified goods bear the brand name of another ineligible person; where the manufacturer has an enforceable right to use the mark for the goods in question, the bar does not apply, even if the same mark is used by others for different goods.