<?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>2011 (1) TMI 258 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203690</link>
    <description>Use of even part of another person&#039;s brand name or trade name, when it indicates a trade connection, is sufficient to deny small scale exemption. Goods cleared from the Pollachi unit under the composite brand ROOTS HAKO, being associated with foreign collaborators, were therefore not entitled to SSI benefit. For aggregate clearance-value computation under Notification No. 8/98-CE, clearances bearing another person&#039;s brand name and fully exempt clearances had to be excluded. The values of the Pollachi branded goods and the exempt flippers were accordingly required to be left out, and the impugned order was held unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2013 14:42:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=177246" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (1) TMI 258 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203690</link>
      <description>Use of even part of another person&#039;s brand name or trade name, when it indicates a trade connection, is sufficient to deny small scale exemption. Goods cleared from the Pollachi unit under the composite brand ROOTS HAKO, being associated with foreign collaborators, were therefore not entitled to SSI benefit. For aggregate clearance-value computation under Notification No. 8/98-CE, clearances bearing another person&#039;s brand name and fully exempt clearances had to be excluded. The values of the Pollachi branded goods and the exempt flippers were accordingly required to be left out, and the impugned order was held unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=203690</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>