https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341722 Ownership of the relevant brand name determined eligibility for SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE. The deed of dissolution was read as a whole, with the clauses granting the respondents the right to use the brand name treated as controlling; the brand was also registered in the respondents' own name for the machines before the demand period. The authorities accepted that joint ownership of a brand name is legally permissible and that different persons may own the same brand for different goods where facts justify it. On that basis, the respondents were held to be the owners of the brand for the machines in dispute and entitled to SSI exemption, and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Tue, 11 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Nov 2017 15:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341722 Ownership of the relevant brand name determined eligibility for SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE. The deed of dissolution was read as a whole, with the clauses granting the respondents the right to use the brand name treated as controlling; the brand was also registered in the respondents' own name for the machines before the demand period. The authorities accepted that joint ownership of a brand name is legally permissible and that different persons may own the same brand for different goods where facts justify it. On that basis, the respondents were held to be the owners of the brand for the machines in dispute and entitled to SSI exemption, and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 11 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341722