<?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>2000 (10) TMI 112 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50103</link>
    <description>A registered trade mark assigned to the assessee and recognised by the trade mark registry as sole proprietorship supported eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 140/83-C.E. The department&#039;s objection that the original foreign proprietor still had worldwide ownership of the brand name was not accepted once the assignment was reflected in the registry records. The commentary also notes that the assessee&#039;s own earlier case had been decided in its favour, and that similar objections in other matters did not change the legal position. The operative principle is that exemption cannot be denied merely on the basis of an alleged overseas connection with the brand name after valid assignment and registry recognition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Aug 2010 17:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=88583" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (10) TMI 112 - CEGAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50103</link>
      <description>A registered trade mark assigned to the assessee and recognised by the trade mark registry as sole proprietorship supported eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 140/83-C.E. The department&#039;s objection that the original foreign proprietor still had worldwide ownership of the brand name was not accepted once the assignment was reflected in the registry records. The commentary also notes that the assessee&#039;s own earlier case had been decided in its favour, and that similar objections in other matters did not change the legal position. The operative principle is that exemption cannot be denied merely on the basis of an alleged overseas connection with the brand name after valid assignment and registry recognition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50103</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>