<?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>2007 (11) TMI 466 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123083</link>
    <description>A product label stating that goods were manufactured under licence or in technical collaboration with a foreign concern does not, by itself, amount to use of that concern&#039;s brand name or trade name for SSI exemption purposes. The label must create a market identity linking the goods to another person in the manner contemplated by the exemption notifications, and the Revenue must establish that the mark used is in fact the other person&#039;s brand. On the stated facts, the collaborator&#039;s name formed part of the assessee&#039;s own corporate name and there was no proof of brand-name use, so SSI exemption remained available and denial of the notifications was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Sep 2012 12:15:59 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=160054" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (11) TMI 466 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123083</link>
      <description>A product label stating that goods were manufactured under licence or in technical collaboration with a foreign concern does not, by itself, amount to use of that concern&#039;s brand name or trade name for SSI exemption purposes. The label must create a market identity linking the goods to another person in the manner contemplated by the exemption notifications, and the Revenue must establish that the mark used is in fact the other person&#039;s brand. On the stated facts, the collaborator&#039;s name formed part of the assessee&#039;s own corporate name and there was no proof of brand-name use, so SSI exemption remained available and denial of the notifications was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123083</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>