SSI exemption denied on a retracted statement alone was unsustainable where brand ownership and corroboration were not proved.

SSI exemption could not be denied merely on a retracted statement alleging use of another person's brand name, because the record contained no independent oral or documentary corroboration and the buyer certificates stated that the machines did not bear the brand. A retracted confessional statement, without supporting evidence, was insufficient proof. The proprietor was also a co-owner of the brand name, so his use of that name in his own capacity was not use of another person's brand name. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the consequential confiscation, duty demand, redemption fine and penalties were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the denial of small scale industry exemption on the ground of use of another person's brand name was justified, and whether the consequential confiscation, redemption fine, duty demand and penalty could be sustained.

Analysis: The exemption was denied solely on the basis of a retracted statement of the proprietor alleging use of the brand name. The record contained no independent oral or documentary evidence corroborating that statement. Buyer certificates on record stated that the machines supplied did not bear the brand name, and no enquiry or witness statement was produced to discredit those certificates. A retracted confessional statement, without corroboration, could not be treated as sufficient proof. The proprietor was also found to be a co-owner of the brand name, so use of that name by him in his own capacity could not be treated as use of another person's brand name.

Conclusion: The denial of SSI exemption was unsustainable, and the confiscation, duty demand and penalties founded on that denial were set aside in favour of the assessee.

---