<?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>2008 (8) TMI 108 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31958</link>
    <description>Small scale exemption is unavailable where goods are cleared under a brand name owned by another person, because a mere licence or permitted use does not transfer ownership of the mark. On the stated facts, the foreign collaborator remained the owner and the assessee was only an authorised user, so the exemption bar applied. The text also states that an extended period of limitation is invocable where classification declarations falsely claim the brand as one&#039;s own despite records showing otherwise, because such inconsistency amounts to a positive misstatement of material facts. It further notes that the denial of exemption and the extended limitation were upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Jan 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=70603" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 108 - CESTAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31958</link>
      <description>Small scale exemption is unavailable where goods are cleared under a brand name owned by another person, because a mere licence or permitted use does not transfer ownership of the mark. On the stated facts, the foreign collaborator remained the owner and the assessee was only an authorised user, so the exemption bar applied. The text also states that an extended period of limitation is invocable where classification declarations falsely claim the brand as one&#039;s own despite records showing otherwise, because such inconsistency amounts to a positive misstatement of material facts. It further notes that the denial of exemption and the extended limitation were upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31958</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>