https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110974 The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the denial of exemption claimed by the appellant subsidiary of a US-based company for dental products under the small-scale industry category. The Tribunal emphasized the separate identity of holding companies and subsidiaries under Central Excise law, stating that allowing subsidiaries to claim exemption for brand names owned by the holding company would undermine the small-scale exemption policy's purpose. Treating the subsidiary as the brand name owner would distort the policy's intent and hinder the growth of small producers' brand names. en-us Wed, 03 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:25:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110974 The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the denial of exemption claimed by the appellant subsidiary of a US-based company for dental products under the small-scale industry category. The Tribunal emphasized the separate identity of holding companies and subsidiaries under Central Excise law, stating that allowing subsidiaries to claim exemption for brand names owned by the holding company would undermine the small-scale exemption policy's purpose. Treating the subsidiary as the brand name owner would distort the policy's intent and hinder the growth of small producers' brand names. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 03 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110974