SSI exemption requires proof of another person's brand name; similar logos and related-party status are not enough.

SSI exemption could not be denied unless the goods were shown to bear the brand name or trade name of another person. On comparison of the labels, the respondents used "BBC Cement", while the other unit's mark was "Hira Cement"; a similar logo by itself was insufficient to establish use of another's brand. The Revenue failed to prove that the bags carried the other unit's brand name, and the respondents' own name on the bags supported the conclusion that the mark was theirs. A finding that the concerns were related persons did not, without more, show that one was a dummy unit of the other. The exemption was therefore available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were disentitled to Small Scale Industry exemption on the ground that their cement bags bore the brand name or trade name of another person.

Analysis: The exemption was unavailable only if the goods were manufactured bearing the brand name of another person. On comparison of the labels and logos, the mark used by the respondents was found to be "BBC Cement", while the brand of the other unit was "Hira Cement". A similar logo alone was held insufficient to establish use of another person's brand name. The Revenue had not shown that the respondents were using the other unit's brand name, and the reference to the respondents' own name on the bags supported the view that the mark was their own. The finding that the two concerns were related persons did not negate their separate existence or prove that one was a dummy unit of the other.

Conclusion: The respondents were entitled to the Small Scale Industry exemption, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: SSI exemption cannot be denied unless the Revenue establishes that the goods bear the brand name of another person; similarity of logo or association between concerns is not enough.

---