<?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 (9) TMI 727 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332466</link>
    <description>SSI exemption could not be denied where the assessee used a brand name registered in its own name and the mark was distinct from another concern&#039;s registered trade mark. The Tribunal noted that the statutory certificate showed ownership of the relevant mark for the goods cleared, and the Revenue&#039;s objection rested only on alleged similarity, which was not borne out by the record. The precedent on a brand name registered in more than one person&#039;s name was held inapplicable on these facts. The assessee was therefore eligible for the exemption, and the demand founded on its denial could not stand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Aug 2017 13:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=441493" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (9) TMI 727 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332466</link>
      <description>SSI exemption could not be denied where the assessee used a brand name registered in its own name and the mark was distinct from another concern&#039;s registered trade mark. The Tribunal noted that the statutory certificate showed ownership of the relevant mark for the goods cleared, and the Revenue&#039;s objection rested only on alleged similarity, which was not borne out by the record. The precedent on a brand name registered in more than one person&#039;s name was held inapplicable on these facts. The assessee was therefore eligible for the exemption, and the demand founded on its denial could not stand.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Aug 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=332466</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>