SSI exemption upto 10 lakhs - Notification 6/2005-S.T. - brand ...

Service Tax

September 2, 2017

SSI exemption upto 10 lakhs - Notification 6/2005-S.T. - brand name - The contention that when the service recipient is the owner of brand name then how can the Noticee use the same brand name for providing service to the owner of the brand, also deserves acceptance on merits.

View Source

← Previous Next →

SSI exemption upto 10 lakhs - Notification 6/2005-S.T. - brand ...

Service Tax

September 2, 2017

You may also like:

Small service provider - exemption upto 10 lakhs - Renting out of immovable joint property – Exemption to each owner or jointly - prima facie each owner is eligible for...

Small service provider - exemption upto ₹ 10 lacs - use of brand name of others - Benefit of N/N. 6/2005-ST - Business Auxiliary services - the appellant is not...

SSI Exemption - manufacturing of printed/branded goods having the name of other brand owner - PP caps - exemption allowed - AT

SSI exemption - Joint ownership of brand name - each owner is eligible for SSI exemption. - AT

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...

Denial of SSI benefit - cakes and pastries supplied to customers under the brand name assigned by the other brand name owner - SSI benefit cannot be denied - AT

SSI Exemption upto ₹ 10 lakhs - use of brand name of others - earning commission for promotion by way of marketing and selling of branded goods under the brand...

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

SSI exemption - use of brand name while providing Mandap Keeper’s Services - N/N. 6/2005-ST - Lower Authorities have rightly held that the appellant was using the brand...

Quick Updates: