<?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>2023 (5) TMI 19 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437212</link>
    <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) on the Appellant for failing to notify the transactions under Section 6(2) of the Competition Act, 2002. It concluded that the transactions were exempt under the De Minimis Notification, as the total turnover of the acquired trademarks was below the threshold limit. The Tribunal also held that the clarificatory notification applied retrospectively, thereby exempting the transactions from the notification requirement. The appeal was allowed concerning the penalty issue, with no order as to costs, while other issues related to the combination were left undecided.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 30 Apr 2023 13:03:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=712260" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (5) TMI 19 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , PRINCIPAL BENCH , NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437212</link>
      <description>The Tribunal set aside the penalty imposed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) on the Appellant for failing to notify the transactions under Section 6(2) of the Competition Act, 2002. It concluded that the transactions were exempt under the De Minimis Notification, as the total turnover of the acquired trademarks was below the threshold limit. The Tribunal also held that the clarificatory notification applied retrospectively, thereby exempting the transactions from the notification requirement. The appeal was allowed concerning the penalty issue, with no order as to costs, while other issues related to the combination were left undecided.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Law of Competition</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Apr 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=437212</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>