News
No demand from successor entity when tax paid by predecessor during period from appointed date till approval of scheme of demerger by High Court
23 March 2022
The Gujarat High Court has set aside the demand from the successor entity in respect of the goods cleared during the period w.e.f. the appointed date till the scheme of demerger approved by the High Court, on which excise duty had already been deposited by the transferor/predecessor.
Patents – Exemption under Section 107A(b) covers only products patented under Indian Patents regime – Essentiality of elements to be seen
09 March 2022
Granting interim relief, the Court in the case Sotefin SA v. Indraprastha Cancer Society and Research Center also held that the words ‘patented products’ covered under Section 107A(b) of the Patents Act, 1970 would include only those products which are patented under the Indian Patents regime...
Sunset review of anti-dumping duty – Existence of sufficient factual material is mandatory to apply exception of continuation of duty
01 March 2022
The anti-dumping bench of the CESTAT has upheld the final findings of the Designated Authority (‘DA’) in the Directorate General of Trade Remedies (‘DGTR’), in the sunset review, for non-continuation of anti-dumping duty on PVC flex films from China PR. Dismissing the appeal filed by the domestic industry, the Tribunal observed that the DA was justified in holding that there did not exist sufficient factual material to allow it to conclude that there was a likelihood of continuation...
No confiscation of land, building and plant and machinery after omission of Central Excise Rule 173Q(2)
28 February 2022
Observing that on the date of the confiscation in March 2007, Rule 173Q(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 stood omitted from the statute books vide Notification dated 12 May 2000, the Supreme Court has set aside the confiscation of land, building and plant and machinery under said Rule 173Q(2).
No tax exemption to pharma companies on gifts to doctors
23 February 2022
The Supreme Court has held that pharmaceutical companies are not entitled to claim tax exemption on the expenditures in giving gifts/freebies to doctors to promote their respective medicines. The Apex Court in its decision dated 22 February 2022 noted that the claim of any expense incurred in providing gifts/ freebees in violation of the provisions of Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 shall be inadmissible under Section 37(1) of Income Tax...
India UAE sign trade agreement on goods and services
21 February 2022
India has on 18th of February signed a Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (‘CEPA’) with the United Arab Emirates. The Agreement which is expected to be operational with effect from May 2022, while will allow duty-free import of food products, textiles, gems & jewellery and pharmaceuticals into UAE from India, imports of certain petrochemicals and dates from UAE will also see import duty cuts in India.
Trademark disparagement – Comparison pointing out deficiency of rival product slanderous and mischievous
17 February 2022
Applying the Delhi High Court decision in the case of Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Limited [151 (2008) DLT 650], the Calcutta High Court has held that an advertisement claiming that Baidhyanath Chyawanprash Special is ‘enriched with 52 Ayurvedic herbs’ whereas ‘ordinary Chyawanprash’ are made ‘with 42 ingredients only’, is disparaging.
Purchaser of goods/services can also be an operational creditor
10 February 2022
Indian Union Budget 2022 proposes a scheme for taxation of virtual digital assets
01 February 2022
Presenting the Union Budget 2022, the Finance Minister of India has on 1 February 2022 proposed a new scheme to provide for taxation of virtual digital assets.
Words ‘Renaissance’ and ‘Sai Renaissance’ are phonetically as well as visually similar – Confusion to be presumed in infringement action when marks and goods/services identical
23 January 2022
The 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India has set aside the High Court decision which in turn had set aside the Trial Court decision holding that the ‘Renaissance’ mark of the plaintiff would be eligible for protection under Section 29(2)(c) read with Section 29(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 against use of the mark ‘Sai Renaissance’ by the defendant, for the same hotel and hospitality services.