<?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>2016 (3) TMI 264 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325080</link>
    <description>SSI exemption is unavailable where cleared goods bear another person&#039;s brand name or trade name, because the exclusion applies whether or not the mark is registered and turns on a trade connection with another person. Here, markings on the goods, seizure material, statements of company personnel and buyers, and supporting documents established that the appellants were clearing goods under another person&#039;s name. The Trade Marks Registry communication did not alter the position, since registration is not determinative for the exemption bar. The exemption was therefore denied and the demand, penalty, and related reliefs as modified in appeal were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2016 11:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=419572" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (3) TMI 264 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325080</link>
      <description>SSI exemption is unavailable where cleared goods bear another person&#039;s brand name or trade name, because the exclusion applies whether or not the mark is registered and turns on a trade connection with another person. Here, markings on the goods, seizure material, statements of company personnel and buyers, and supporting documents established that the appellants were clearing goods under another person&#039;s name. The Trade Marks Registry communication did not alter the position, since registration is not determinative for the exemption bar. The exemption was therefore denied and the demand, penalty, and related reliefs as modified in appeal were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=325080</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>