<?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>2000 (3) TMI 295 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93453</link>
    <description>Goods bearing a foreign company&#039;s brand name or trade name were held ineligible for small scale industry exemption under Notification No. 175/86 because the mark used on the goods linked them with that company. The deciding factor was whether the assessee used another person&#039;s brand name or trade name on the goods; the record showed that &quot;IRD&quot; and &quot;Mechanalysis&quot; were trade marks of the foreign company, so clause 7 of the notification applied. The plea that the mark was merely a house mark was rejected because the agreement itself described the expressions as the foreign company&#039;s trade marks. The exemption was denied.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Nov 2011 14:52:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=130514" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (3) TMI 295 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93453</link>
      <description>Goods bearing a foreign company&#039;s brand name or trade name were held ineligible for small scale industry exemption under Notification No. 175/86 because the mark used on the goods linked them with that company. The deciding factor was whether the assessee used another person&#039;s brand name or trade name on the goods; the record showed that &quot;IRD&quot; and &quot;Mechanalysis&quot; were trade marks of the foreign company, so clause 7 of the notification applied. The plea that the mark was merely a house mark was rejected because the agreement itself described the expressions as the foreign company&#039;s trade marks. The exemption was denied.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=93453</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>