https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432596 SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. was available where the brand name used by the assessee, "Bintex", was registered in the names of family members, including the partner, because it could not be treated as a brand belonging to "another person". On that basis, the demand was not sustainable. The separate penalty on the partner under Rule 26 also could not survive, both because the principal demand failed and because a distinct penalty on the partner was impermissible where penalty had already been imposed on the partnership firm. en-us Thu, 05 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Jan 2023 15:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432596 SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. was available where the brand name used by the assessee, "Bintex", was registered in the names of family members, including the partner, because it could not be treated as a brand belonging to "another person". On that basis, the demand was not sustainable. The separate penalty on the partner under Rule 26 also could not survive, both because the principal demand failed and because a distinct penalty on the partner was impermissible where penalty had already been imposed on the partnership firm. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 05 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432596