https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114828 A jointly used family brand name, supported by a memorandum of understanding allowing each member to use it on different goods, was not treated as the exclusive property of one concern. On that basis, the brand name 'KUMAR' could not bar the assessee from claiming small scale industry exemption, because exclusivity is required to deny the benefit. The order confirming duty, penalty and confiscation was therefore set aside and the exemption under Notification No. 01/1993 was upheld. en-us Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 May 2012 14:45:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114828 A jointly used family brand name, supported by a memorandum of understanding allowing each member to use it on different goods, was not treated as the exclusive property of one concern. On that basis, the brand name 'KUMAR' could not bar the assessee from claiming small scale industry exemption, because exclusivity is required to deny the benefit. The order confirming duty, penalty and confiscation was therefore set aside and the exemption under Notification No. 01/1993 was upheld. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 14 Dec 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=114828