<?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>2013 (11) TMI 1419 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240242</link>
    <description>Use of a brand name registered in another person&#039;s name disentitles an assessee from small scale exemption under Notification No. 8/01-CE, even where the goods are otherwise within the relevant tariff chapter. The surrounding facts may also support an inference that the assessee knowingly adopted that brand name, so a defence based on absence of mala fide intention can fail on the evidence. Reliance on authorities dealing with remote-area use or use of one&#039;s own name will not assist where the facts show use of another&#039;s registered brand. The appeal was therefore rejected and the duty demand and related consequences were sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2013 06:16:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=337498" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (11) TMI 1419 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240242</link>
      <description>Use of a brand name registered in another person&#039;s name disentitles an assessee from small scale exemption under Notification No. 8/01-CE, even where the goods are otherwise within the relevant tariff chapter. The surrounding facts may also support an inference that the assessee knowingly adopted that brand name, so a defence based on absence of mala fide intention can fail on the evidence. Reliance on authorities dealing with remote-area use or use of one&#039;s own name will not assist where the facts show use of another&#039;s registered brand. The appeal was therefore rejected and the duty demand and related consequences were sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Aug 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=240242</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>