<?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>1999 (8) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92174</link>
    <description>Small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86 was available where the brand name had been assigned to the assessee before the exemption claim and the trade marks records reflected the transfer with retrospective effect. On that basis, the brand name was treated as belonging to the assessee at the relevant time and not to another person. The assignee of a brand name was therefore entitled to the notification benefit, and denial of the exemption was not justified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2011 12:51:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=129235" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (8) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92174</link>
      <description>Small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86 was available where the brand name had been assigned to the assessee before the exemption claim and the trade marks records reflected the transfer with retrospective effect. On that basis, the brand name was treated as belonging to the assessee at the relevant time and not to another person. The assignee of a brand name was therefore entitled to the notification benefit, and denial of the exemption was not justified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Aug 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=92174</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>