<?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>2025 (11) TMI 5 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780537</link>
    <description>SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE is denied only where the goods bear the brand name or trade name of another person and the mark indicates a trade connection with that person. The Department must prove that the brand belongs to someone other than the assessee and that the exclusion is attracted on the facts. Where the assessee shows assignment of the mark, or where no subsisting third-party ownership is established for the impugned brand, the bar does not apply. On the stated facts, the material did not establish exclusive ownership in another person for the brands in question, so the SSI benefit remained available and the demand and penalty were unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 31 Oct 2025 15:49:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=861607" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (11) TMI 5 - CESTAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780537</link>
      <description>SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE is denied only where the goods bear the brand name or trade name of another person and the mark indicates a trade connection with that person. The Department must prove that the brand belongs to someone other than the assessee and that the exclusion is attracted on the facts. Where the assessee shows assignment of the mark, or where no subsisting third-party ownership is established for the impugned brand, the bar does not apply. On the stated facts, the material did not establish exclusive ownership in another person for the brands in question, so the SSI benefit remained available and the demand and penalty were unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=780537</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>