<?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>2005 (3) TMI 157 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47657</link>
    <description>Exemption for small scale industries under Notification No. 175/86 was available despite use of another person&#039;s brand name only if the brand owner was himself entitled to the exemption during the relevant period. The condition was not satisfied here because entitlement of the brand owner for that period was not shown, and later registration or exemption on other goods did not establish earlier eligibility. The appellant therefore could not claim the notification benefit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=86175" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (3) TMI 157 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47657</link>
      <description>Exemption for small scale industries under Notification No. 175/86 was available despite use of another person&#039;s brand name only if the brand owner was himself entitled to the exemption during the relevant period. The condition was not satisfied here because entitlement of the brand owner for that period was not shown, and later registration or exemption on other goods did not establish earlier eligibility. The appellant therefore could not claim the notification benefit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47657</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>