SSI Exemption - assignment to use the brand name - The mere fact ...

Central Excise

September 22, 2015

SSI Exemption - assignment to use the brand name - The mere fact that a different view is possible on the same set of facts cannot be a ground to exercise power under that provision - exemption cannot be denied - HC

View Source

← Previous Next →

SSI Exemption - assignment to use the brand name - The mere fact ...

Central Excise

September 22, 2015

You may also like:

SSI Exemption - use of Brand/Trade mark or others - as long as assignment stands the assessee using the brand name is eligible for the benefit of SSI exemption notification - AT

SSI Exemption - Brand name - Demand - Limitation - if the brand name is being used on two different products, the debarring clause of small scale exemption notification...

Benefit of SSI Exemption - Brand name - Mobike parts sold under own brand name and Logo of different mobike manufacturers mentioned for their identification only -...

SSI Exemption - manufacture of branded goods - So long the assignment deed in favour of the appellant remains valid, the appellant is entitled to SSI exemption.

SSI exemption - appellant herein cannot be denied the benefit of SSI notification on the ground that the brand Que is not registered in their name - AT

Denial of Benefit of SSI Notification No.1/93 – Brand name not belonging to appellant – use of brand name for different goods is permissible under the law - AT

Brand name – SSI exemption – contention of the assessees that ‘Micro’ is not a brand name belonging to MPPL but stands for the first name of MCPPL, cannot be accepted- AT

SSI Exemption - use of brand name of others - brand name assigned in favor of appellant or not - The notification does not provide any scope for any benefit on...

SSI Exemption - Brand Name - extended period of limitation - when divergent views are expression difference decisions, the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked - AT

SSI Exemption - Brand name - there is intention on the part of the appellants to use the brand name ‘Prince’ which belonged to others - they cannot claim bonafide -...

Quick Updates: