https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158149 Rule 3(66a) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 was interpreted to target a newly set up unit using an established brand to gain its own market advantage. The majority held that limited use of the mark "Merino" only for plywood supplied under agreement to the mark owner, while other goods were sold under different brands, did not attract the disqualification because the mischief addressed by the rule was not shown. The refusal of the eligibility certificate was therefore unjustified. The dissent considered the same use sufficient to associate the applicant's goods with an established unit and obtain an unfair commercial advantage, and would have held the rule violated. en-us Fri, 08 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Oct 2013 14:43:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158149 Rule 3(66a) of the Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941 was interpreted to target a newly set up unit using an established brand to gain its own market advantage. The majority held that limited use of the mark "Merino" only for plywood supplied under agreement to the mark owner, while other goods were sold under different brands, did not attract the disqualification because the mischief addressed by the rule was not shown. The refusal of the eligibility certificate was therefore unjustified. The dissent considered the same use sufficient to associate the applicant's goods with an established unit and obtain an unfair commercial advantage, and would have held the rule violated. Case-Laws VAT and Sales Tax Fri, 08 Oct 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=158149