<?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>2018 (2) TMI 1722 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272432</link>
    <description>SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE was available where the goods were sold under the mark &quot;BHAMBER 2015&quot; and the other concern used &quot;HI BHAMBER&quot;. Because both marks were registered and were found to be dissimilar, the use of &quot;BHAMBER 2015&quot; was not treated as use of another person&#039;s brand name. The assessee was therefore entitled to the exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 May 2018 21:06:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=518828" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (2) TMI 1722 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272432</link>
      <description>SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE was available where the goods were sold under the mark &quot;BHAMBER 2015&quot; and the other concern used &quot;HI BHAMBER&quot;. Because both marks were registered and were found to be dissimilar, the use of &quot;BHAMBER 2015&quot; was not treated as use of another person&#039;s brand name. The assessee was therefore entitled to the exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272432</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>