<?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 121 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83720</link>
    <description>Exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was unavailable where goods were affixed with another person&#039;s brand name or trade name and that person was not eligible for the exemption. Para 7 excludes specified goods in such cases, and the mark was found to belong to the foreign company whose goodwill was being promoted through the goods, showing a trade connection rather than a neutral label. The exclusion therefore applied, and the benefit of exemption was rightly denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 11 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Jul 2011 12:13:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=120864" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (5) TMI 121 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83720</link>
      <description>Exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was unavailable where goods were affixed with another person&#039;s brand name or trade name and that person was not eligible for the exemption. Para 7 excludes specified goods in such cases, and the mark was found to belong to the foreign company whose goodwill was being promoted through the goods, showing a trade connection rather than a neutral label. The exclusion therefore applied, and the benefit of exemption was rightly denied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 11 May 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=83720</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>