<?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>2010 (4) TMI 942 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153589</link>
    <description>SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. does not extend to goods bearing another person&#039;s brand name merely because the assessee later obtained retrospective registration of that mark; the notification is applied strictly and retrospective registration does not alter the original exclusion. On limitation, disclosure of the brand name alone does not amount to full disclosure where ownership by another person is material to the allegation of suppression. The text notes that, on these facts, the extended period under Section 11A(1) was prima facie invocable because the declaration did not reveal that the mark belonged to someone else.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Jul 2013 12:59:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=170624" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (4) TMI 942 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153589</link>
      <description>SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. does not extend to goods bearing another person&#039;s brand name merely because the assessee later obtained retrospective registration of that mark; the notification is applied strictly and retrospective registration does not alter the original exclusion. On limitation, disclosure of the brand name alone does not amount to full disclosure where ownership by another person is material to the allegation of suppression. The text notes that, on these facts, the extended period under Section 11A(1) was prima facie invocable because the declaration did not reveal that the mark belonged to someone else.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153589</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>