https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53584 A claimed assignment of a trade mark must be supported by contemporaneous conduct and disclosure before it can displace the original brand owner's rights for small scale exemption purposes. On the facts, the alleged January 1994 transfer was not accepted as genuine because it was not reflected in the proprietor's statement at search, and the application for registration in the respondents' name was made only after seizure proceedings began. Exemption was therefore unavailable for clearances under another concern's brand name up to 18-4-1996, while eligibility for the later period was remanded for fresh decision. Confiscation of unaccounted branded goods was upheld, but the redemption fine was reduced. en-us Mon, 13 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:02:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53584 A claimed assignment of a trade mark must be supported by contemporaneous conduct and disclosure before it can displace the original brand owner's rights for small scale exemption purposes. On the facts, the alleged January 1994 transfer was not accepted as genuine because it was not reflected in the proprietor's statement at search, and the application for registration in the respondents' name was made only after seizure proceedings began. Exemption was therefore unavailable for clearances under another concern's brand name up to 18-4-1996, while eligibility for the later period was remanded for fresh decision. Confiscation of unaccounted branded goods was upheld, but the redemption fine was reduced. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 13 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=53584