SSI exemption depends on proving another person's brand name; copyright in artwork is not enough.

SSI exemption was available where the manufacturer had consistently used its own trade name, "Anutone", and the Revenue failed to prove that it was another person's brand name. Copyright registration for artistic or literary material did not establish ownership of a market trade mark or brand name, and copyright in artwork was treated as distinct from trade name rights. On that footing, denial of small scale industry benefit was unsustainable, and the confirmed duty, interest and penalties also could not survive. The exemption was therefore held admissible and the consequential demands and penalties were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether goods manufactured and cleared under the name "Anutone" were entitled to small scale industry exemption, and whether the demand and penalties were sustainable.

Analysis: The appellants consistently used the name "Anutone" for their products since 1990, and that use was not disproved by the Revenue. The material registered under the Copyright Act related to literary and artistic designs for the product, not to a trade mark or brand name for the goods in the market. A copyright in artistic work is distinct from ownership of a trade name or brand name used on manufactured goods. The Revenue failed to establish that "Anutone" was the brand name of any other person or that it belonged to Shri Sandeep Mittal in his individual capacity. Since the appellants were shown to be using their own trade name, the basis for denying SSI benefit did not survive. Once the exemption was held admissible, the confirmed duty, interest, and penalties also could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to SSI exemption. The duty demands and penalties were set aside.

---