<?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>2006 (6) TMI 5 - Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=473</link>
    <description>Small Scale Industry exemption was not denied for goods marked &quot;DVK&quot; and &quot;Popular&quot; because those markings were used with the appellant&#039;s own name and were not shown to be another person&#039;s brand name used in the course of trade. The exemption was therefore available on that issue. By contrast, &quot;Hansu&quot; was admitted to be the brand or trade name of Hansu Controls Ltd., so exemption was denied only for goods bearing that mark. Duty was confined to the clearances bearing &quot;Hansu&quot;, and penalties were set aside where the issue turned on mixed questions of law and fact already settled by the apex court.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:13:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=39922" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (6) TMI 5 - Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=473</link>
      <description>Small Scale Industry exemption was not denied for goods marked &quot;DVK&quot; and &quot;Popular&quot; because those markings were used with the appellant&#039;s own name and were not shown to be another person&#039;s brand name used in the course of trade. The exemption was therefore available on that issue. By contrast, &quot;Hansu&quot; was admitted to be the brand or trade name of Hansu Controls Ltd., so exemption was denied only for goods bearing that mark. Duty was confined to the clearances bearing &quot;Hansu&quot;, and penalties were set aside where the issue turned on mixed questions of law and fact already settled by the apex court.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 Jun 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=473</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>