<?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 (7) TMI 465 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203202</link>
    <description>SSI exemption for goods cleared under the brand name &quot;Advance&quot; turned on whether the assessee had an ownership interest or legally effective transfer of the mark during the relevant period. The trade mark agreement gave only a non-exclusive right, and the later supplementary clause did not amount to an absolute transfer. Registration took effect only from the date of application, 18-08-1999, so the SSI bar continued to apply before that date and ceased thereafter. Penalty on the Managing Director under Rule 209A was unsustainable because no goods had been held liable to confiscation, which was a necessary basis for invoking that rule.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 May 2011 12:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=176768" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (7) TMI 465 - CESTAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203202</link>
      <description>SSI exemption for goods cleared under the brand name &quot;Advance&quot; turned on whether the assessee had an ownership interest or legally effective transfer of the mark during the relevant period. The trade mark agreement gave only a non-exclusive right, and the later supplementary clause did not amount to an absolute transfer. Registration took effect only from the date of application, 18-08-1999, so the SSI bar continued to apply before that date and ceased thereafter. Penalty on the Managing Director under Rule 209A was unsustainable because no goods had been held liable to confiscation, which was a necessary basis for invoking that rule.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203202</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>