https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52962 The Commissioner held that despite the deed of assignment, ownership of the brand name Richfield (I) remained with Richfield (India), granting the appellants only the right to manufacture goods under the brand name. The Commissioner emphasized the absence of proof of others manufacturing goods under the brand name, concluding that the appellants were not the brand name owners. Regarding SSI exemption, the Commissioner upheld the appellants' eligibility based on the assignment deed and lack of evidence of the original owner's brand name usage. Legal precedents supported the decision, emphasizing the importance of the assignment deed in determining ownership and benefit eligibility, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. en-us Wed, 02 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Oct 2010 17:24:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52962 The Commissioner held that despite the deed of assignment, ownership of the brand name Richfield (I) remained with Richfield (India), granting the appellants only the right to manufacture goods under the brand name. The Commissioner emphasized the absence of proof of others manufacturing goods under the brand name, concluding that the appellants were not the brand name owners. Regarding SSI exemption, the Commissioner upheld the appellants' eligibility based on the assignment deed and lack of evidence of the original owner's brand name usage. Legal precedents supported the decision, emphasizing the importance of the assignment deed in determining ownership and benefit eligibility, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Jun 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52962