<?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>2002 (11) TMI 186 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51676</link>
    <description>SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. is unavailable where goods bear a registered brand name of another person unless the assessee proves a legally recognised transfer or ownership of that mark. Permissive use under a dissolution deed, acquiescence, or concurrent user does not by itself remove the statutory bar, and a distinction between ISI and non-ISI goods does not change the brand-name position for the notification. Where duty is worked out from the sale price, it is to be recomputed on a cum-duty basis, and penalty may be withheld where the assessee had previously been allowed the benefit of the predecessor notification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Sep 2010 15:34:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90154" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (11) TMI 186 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51676</link>
      <description>SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. is unavailable where goods bear a registered brand name of another person unless the assessee proves a legally recognised transfer or ownership of that mark. Permissive use under a dissolution deed, acquiescence, or concurrent user does not by itself remove the statutory bar, and a distinction between ISI and non-ISI goods does not change the brand-name position for the notification. Where duty is worked out from the sale price, it is to be recomputed on a cum-duty basis, and penalty may be withheld where the assessee had previously been allowed the benefit of the predecessor notification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Nov 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=51676</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>