https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2931 SSI exemption under Notification No. 08/2001 was upheld because the respondent remained a registered independent unit with its own brand name, while land, immovable properties and trademarks continued to belong to it under the share purchase arrangement. Majority shareholding by Hindustan Lever Ltd. did not, by itself, establish that the respondent was a sham, a front company, or the same unit as the holding company. No financial flow back was shown, and dividend receipt could not be treated as such flow back. The authorities on clubbing were distinguishable because the relevant notification did not contain equivalent clubbing language, so the clearances could not be aggregated on these facts. en-us Mon, 24 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 21 Dec 2015 10:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2931 SSI exemption under Notification No. 08/2001 was upheld because the respondent remained a registered independent unit with its own brand name, while land, immovable properties and trademarks continued to belong to it under the share purchase arrangement. Majority shareholding by Hindustan Lever Ltd. did not, by itself, establish that the respondent was a sham, a front company, or the same unit as the holding company. No financial flow back was shown, and dividend receipt could not be treated as such flow back. The authorities on clubbing were distinguishable because the relevant notification did not contain equivalent clubbing language, so the clearances could not be aggregated on these facts. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2931