<?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>2017 (2) TMI 943 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339243</link>
    <description>Small scale exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE is denied only when the goods bear a brand name belonging to another person and indicating a trade connection. The Revenue had to prove that the appellants were using someone else&#039;s brand name, but the record did not establish ownership by any identifiable third person or borrowing of the mark. Where the same expression is not shown to belong to another person and is available for use by any assessee, exemption cannot be refused merely because another entity also uses it. On that basis, the appellants were entitled to the exemption and the duty and penalty demands were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2017 17:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=459410" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 943 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339243</link>
      <description>Small scale exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE is denied only when the goods bear a brand name belonging to another person and indicating a trade connection. The Revenue had to prove that the appellants were using someone else&#039;s brand name, but the record did not establish ownership by any identifiable third person or borrowing of the mark. Where the same expression is not shown to belong to another person and is available for use by any assessee, exemption cannot be refused merely because another entity also uses it. On that basis, the appellants were entitled to the exemption and the duty and penalty demands were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339243</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>