<?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>2003 (12) TMI 544 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113264</link>
    <description>SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93 was denied where the goods cleared were silencers for scooters and motorcycles of the same kind and were treated as identical or similar for the notification restriction. The assessee failed to show that the goods were technically distinct so as to fall outside the bar on use of a mark associated with another manufacturer. The mark used by the assessee continued to be associated in trade with that other manufacturer, and there was no effective transfer or public notice of any change. Decisions cited by the assessee were inapplicable because the case involved goods of the same class or nature, not radically different commodities.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 May 2012 16:25:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=150280" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (12) TMI 544 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113264</link>
      <description>SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93 was denied where the goods cleared were silencers for scooters and motorcycles of the same kind and were treated as identical or similar for the notification restriction. The assessee failed to show that the goods were technically distinct so as to fall outside the bar on use of a mark associated with another manufacturer. The mark used by the assessee continued to be associated in trade with that other manufacturer, and there was no effective transfer or public notice of any change. Decisions cited by the assessee were inapplicable because the case involved goods of the same class or nature, not radically different commodities.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 29 Dec 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=113264</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>