https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446436 CESTAT Hyderabad dismissed the appellant's appeal regarding SSI exemption for goods cleared under brand names of others. The appellant failed to provide evidence of owning brand names "STOP" and "TODAY," while sufficient evidence established these belonged to other entities. The tribunal distinguished the cited SC precedent, noting it involved simultaneous use of same trademark by different parties in their own rights, unlike this case where appellant couldn't prove brand ownership. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly found the brand names belonged to other persons, not the appellant, and no evidence showed market perception of appellant as brand owner. The appeal was dismissed as the lower order was based on correct appreciation of facts and legal provisions. en-us Mon, 04 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 05 Dec 2023 07:36:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446436 CESTAT Hyderabad dismissed the appellant's appeal regarding SSI exemption for goods cleared under brand names of others. The appellant failed to provide evidence of owning brand names "STOP" and "TODAY," while sufficient evidence established these belonged to other entities. The tribunal distinguished the cited SC precedent, noting it involved simultaneous use of same trademark by different parties in their own rights, unlike this case where appellant couldn't prove brand ownership. The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly found the brand names belonged to other persons, not the appellant, and no evidence showed market perception of appellant as brand owner. The appeal was dismissed as the lower order was based on correct appreciation of facts and legal provisions. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 04 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446436