<?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 (4) TMI 697 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208820</link>
    <description>Use of a brand name already registered in another person&#039;s name bars small-scale industry exemption, even where the assessee adopts only part of that mark. The goods were manufactured under the mark TIP TOP, which had been registered earlier in another&#039;s name, and the assessee commenced business later. A difference in logo did not make the mark distinct for exemption purposes. On that basis, the SSI exemption was denied and the demand was upheld on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 07:43:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=182278" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (4) TMI 697 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208820</link>
      <description>Use of a brand name already registered in another person&#039;s name bars small-scale industry exemption, even where the assessee adopts only part of that mark. The goods were manufactured under the mark TIP TOP, which had been registered earlier in another&#039;s name, and the assessee commenced business later. A difference in logo did not make the mark distinct for exemption purposes. On that basis, the SSI exemption was denied and the demand was upheld on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=208820</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>