https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115710 SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93 was not denied where two partnership firms used the same brand name and logo, because the mark was found to be jointly owned and therefore could not be treated as another person's brand name. The connected units' clearances were also considered for eligibility, but even on clubbing, the aggregate turnover remained within the prescribed exemption limit. On those findings, the exemption remained available and clubbing did not disentitle the units from the benefit. en-us Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 Jun 2012 13:29:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115710 SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93 was not denied where two partnership firms used the same brand name and logo, because the mark was found to be jointly owned and therefore could not be treated as another person's brand name. The connected units' clearances were also considered for eligibility, but even on clubbing, the aggregate turnover remained within the prescribed exemption limit. On those findings, the exemption remained available and clubbing did not disentitle the units from the benefit. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 22 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=115710