SSI exemption and brand name use: exemption cannot be denied unless the brand owner also manufactures the specified goods.

Small scale industry exemption could not be denied merely because the assessee manufactured ice cream under another co-operative society's brand name. The controlling test was whether the brand owner was itself manufacturing the specified goods; unless that condition is satisfied, use of the brand name alone does not defeat SSI exemption. Here, the brand owner was not manufacturing ice cream, so the statutory ground for denial was not met and the exemption remained available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant could be denied small scale industry exemption on the ground that it manufactured ice cream under the brand name belonging to another co-operative society.

Analysis: The appellant manufactured ice cream under the brand name MILMA belonging to another co-operative society, but that society was not manufacturing ice cream at all. The benefit of SSI exemption could not be denied merely because the appellant used that brand name. The controlling principle applied was that the Revenue must establish not only that the goods bear another person's brand name, but also that such other person is manufacturing the specified goods. Since the brand owner was not manufacturing ice cream, the condition for denial of exemption was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The denial of SSI exemption was unsustainable and the appeal was allowed.

---