<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1994 (5) TMI 80 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83260</link>
    <description>Use of the collaborator-linked mark &quot;Festo&quot; on the goods was treated as use of a brand name or trade name within the broad definition in the SSI exemption notification, because it indicated a trade connection with another person not entitled to the exemption. The small-scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86 was therefore denied on that ground. However, the record lacked detailed findings on suppression of facts, departmental knowledge, duty computation, and the treatment of non-branded and bought-out items, and the appellants were to be allowed to contest those matters and cross-examine officials. Those issues were remanded for de novo consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2011 12:05:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120405" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (5) TMI 80 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83260</link>
      <description>Use of the collaborator-linked mark &quot;Festo&quot; on the goods was treated as use of a brand name or trade name within the broad definition in the SSI exemption notification, because it indicated a trade connection with another person not entitled to the exemption. The small-scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86 was therefore denied on that ground. However, the record lacked detailed findings on suppression of facts, departmental knowledge, duty computation, and the treatment of non-branded and bought-out items, and the appellants were to be allowed to contest those matters and cross-examine officials. Those issues were remanded for de novo consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83260</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>