https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47325 Exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. and Notification No. 1/93 could not be denied merely because the goods bore a registered trademark assigned to the assessee. The denial rested on the use of the mark and an allegation that the assignment for consideration was not bona fide, but the Tribunal held that the assignee was entitled to use the mark so long as the assignment subsisted. The Supreme Court found no infirmity in that view and upheld entitlement to the notifications. en-us Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 13 Jun 2016 18:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47325 Exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. and Notification No. 1/93 could not be denied merely because the goods bore a registered trademark assigned to the assessee. The denial rested on the use of the mark and an allegation that the assignment for consideration was not bona fide, but the Tribunal held that the assignee was entitled to use the mark so long as the assignment subsisted. The Supreme Court found no infirmity in that view and upheld entitlement to the notifications. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47325