SSI exemption turns on brand owner eligibility and claimant compliance, not whether the brand owner actually availed the benefit.

SSI exemption was available where the claimant factory was registered as an SSI unit and satisfied the prescribed notification conditions, even though the brand name holder had not itself availed the exemption. The decisive factor was the brand name owner's eligibility under the notification, not actual use of the benefit by that owner. Earlier decisions recognising the distinction between eligibility and actual availment were applied, and denial of exemption on the ground that the brand name holder had not taken the benefit was held unsustainable. The brand name users were therefore entitled to the SSI exemption.

---

---

Issues: Whether the users of a registered SSI brand name were entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption when the brand name holder was registered as an SSI unit but had not itself availed the exemption.

Analysis: The exemption notification applied to specified goods cleared within the prescribed value limit by a factory registered as an SSI unit. Those conditions were satisfied here. The decisive requirement was the brand name holder's eligibility for SSI exemption, not whether the holder actually availed the benefit. The distinction between eligibility and actual availment had already been recognised in earlier decisions, which held that the non-availment of exemption by the brand name owner does not defeat the claim of the brand name user if the statutory conditions are otherwise met.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to SSI exemption, and denial of the benefit on the ground that the brand name holder had not availed the exemption was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: For SSI exemption, what matters is the brand name owner's eligibility under the notification and fulfilment of the prescribed conditions by the claimant, not the actual availment of the exemption by the brand name owner.

---