<?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>1995 (12) TMI 108 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84673</link>
    <description>A stylised ARK mark used on cartons and in advertisements was treated as a trade name of another person because the surrounding material showed a trade connection with Arksan Pvt. Ltd.; use on cartons rather than directly on goods did not avoid the exemption notification&#039;s disqualification. The Revenue was required to prove that the other person was not eligible for small-scale exemption, but that factual basis was not properly established on the record. Connected issues on the period of use of the mark and limitation were also left open for reconsideration. The adjudication was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh determination after giving the assessee an opportunity to respond to the evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 13 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Jul 2011 14:59:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=121740" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (12) TMI 108 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84673</link>
      <description>A stylised ARK mark used on cartons and in advertisements was treated as a trade name of another person because the surrounding material showed a trade connection with Arksan Pvt. Ltd.; use on cartons rather than directly on goods did not avoid the exemption notification&#039;s disqualification. The Revenue was required to prove that the other person was not eligible for small-scale exemption, but that factual basis was not properly established on the record. Connected issues on the period of use of the mark and limitation were also left open for reconsideration. The adjudication was therefore set aside and the matter remanded for fresh determination after giving the assessee an opportunity to respond to the evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 13 Dec 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84673</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>