<?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>1999 (10) TMI 758 - CESTAT , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288276</link>
    <description>The appellant, M/s. Elymer Havells Electrics, manufactured electric meters affixed with the brand name &#039;Elymer Havells.&#039; The Collector demanded Central Excise duty and imposed a penalty, alleging ineligibility for Notification No. 175/86. The appellant argued brand establishment since 1981 and cited precedents, contending brand differences do not disqualify them. The judgment found a recognizable connection between the goods and brand owner, rejecting the appellant&#039;s arguments and upholding the Revenue&#039;s position. The appeal was dismissed, with the court affirming the imposition of penalty and extended limitation period due to non-disclosure of brand affixation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 May 2020 10:21:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=613955" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (10) TMI 758 - CESTAT , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288276</link>
      <description>The appellant, M/s. Elymer Havells Electrics, manufactured electric meters affixed with the brand name &#039;Elymer Havells.&#039; The Collector demanded Central Excise duty and imposed a penalty, alleging ineligibility for Notification No. 175/86. The appellant argued brand establishment since 1981 and cited precedents, contending brand differences do not disqualify them. The judgment found a recognizable connection between the goods and brand owner, rejecting the appellant&#039;s arguments and upholding the Revenue&#039;s position. The appeal was dismissed, with the court affirming the imposition of penalty and extended limitation period due to non-disclosure of brand affixation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Oct 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288276</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>