<?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>2005 (5) TMI 526 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116450</link>
    <description>A purchaser of a manufacturing unit acquired the business as a going concern together with its assets, goodwill, trade marks, designs, know-how and connected rights, and was permitted to use the same name and style after the sale. On that basis, the article notes that use of the assigned trade mark did not amount to use of another person&#039;s brand name for the relevant goods, because the mark had been transferred to the purchaser. It further reflects the principle that assignment of a trade mark can preserve eligibility for small scale exemption, and that the same brand name may lawfully subsist in different ownership for different classes of goods. The exemption benefit was therefore available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2012 16:23:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=153448" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (5) TMI 526 - CESTAT,  MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116450</link>
      <description>A purchaser of a manufacturing unit acquired the business as a going concern together with its assets, goodwill, trade marks, designs, know-how and connected rights, and was permitted to use the same name and style after the sale. On that basis, the article notes that use of the assigned trade mark did not amount to use of another person&#039;s brand name for the relevant goods, because the mark had been transferred to the purchaser. It further reflects the principle that assignment of a trade mark can preserve eligibility for small scale exemption, and that the same brand name may lawfully subsist in different ownership for different classes of goods. The exemption benefit was therefore available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=116450</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>