https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447845 Use of the family mark "Roopkala" by different members of the same family did not amount to use of another person's brand name for denying SSI exemption under Notification No. 08/2003-CE. The appellant's use of "Club Roopkala" was treated as part of the common family brand arrangement, and not as adoption of an unrelated third party's mark. On the stated factual matrix and cited authorities, the denial of small-scale industry exemption was unsustainable, and the appellant was entitled to the exemption. en-us Fri, 22 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 06 Jan 2024 07:37:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447845 Use of the family mark "Roopkala" by different members of the same family did not amount to use of another person's brand name for denying SSI exemption under Notification No. 08/2003-CE. The appellant's use of "Club Roopkala" was treated as part of the common family brand arrangement, and not as adoption of an unrelated third party's mark. On the stated factual matrix and cited authorities, the denial of small-scale industry exemption was unsustainable, and the appellant was entitled to the exemption. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 22 Dec 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=447845