<?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>2012 (7) TMI 384 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214813</link>
    <description>SSI exemption was admissible for cakes and pastries cleared under a brand name assigned to the assessee. The deed of assignment gave the assessee the exclusive right to use the HOT BREADS mark within the specified territory, so the goods were not cleared under the brand name of another person for purposes of the SSI notification. The exclusion in the notification applies only where the brand name or trade mark belongs to another person and is used by the assessee as such; an assigned mark used as the assignee&#039;s own within the contractual territory does not attract the bar. Registration of the assignment deed was held to be immaterial, and the contrary precedent was treated as distinguishable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2013 12:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=188204" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (7) TMI 384 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214813</link>
      <description>SSI exemption was admissible for cakes and pastries cleared under a brand name assigned to the assessee. The deed of assignment gave the assessee the exclusive right to use the HOT BREADS mark within the specified territory, so the goods were not cleared under the brand name of another person for purposes of the SSI notification. The exclusion in the notification applies only where the brand name or trade mark belongs to another person and is used by the assessee as such; an assigned mark used as the assignee&#039;s own within the contractual territory does not attract the bar. Registration of the assignment deed was held to be immaterial, and the contrary precedent was treated as distinguishable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jun 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=214813</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>