<?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 (10) TMI 482 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333462</link>
    <description>A valid assignment of a brand name can prevent denial of Small Scale Industry exemption where the brand is no longer treated as belonging to another person. The assignment agreement dated 01-04-2001 was accepted as an effective transfer of brand rights to the respondent, so its use of the mark did not amount to use of another person&#039;s brand name. On that basis, the denial of exemption under Notification No. 8/2001-CE was unsustainable, and the respondent remained entitled to the SSI benefit. The contrary revenue precedent was distinguished because the genuineness of the assignment deed was in doubt there, unlike on these facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Oct 2016 18:38:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=444663" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (10) TMI 482 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333462</link>
      <description>A valid assignment of a brand name can prevent denial of Small Scale Industry exemption where the brand is no longer treated as belonging to another person. The assignment agreement dated 01-04-2001 was accepted as an effective transfer of brand rights to the respondent, so its use of the mark did not amount to use of another person&#039;s brand name. On that basis, the denial of exemption under Notification No. 8/2001-CE was unsustainable, and the respondent remained entitled to the SSI benefit. The contrary revenue precedent was distinguished because the genuineness of the assignment deed was in doubt there, unlike on these facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333462</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>