SSI exemption and brand-name use: denial fails unless actual use of another's brand is proved by cogent evidence.

SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93 cannot be denied merely on an allegation that goods were cleared under another person's brand name. The document notes that the assessee manufactured pressure cookers and cleared them under its own brand name, "Windsor". There was no evidence that this brand belonged to another person, and no tangible material showed clearance under the alleged brands "Philco" or "Windsor and Wilson". The partner's statement was misread and the invoices consistently reflected only the assessee's own brand. On that basis, denial of the exemption was unsustainable unless the department proved actual use of another's brand name with cogent evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to small scale industry exemption under Notification No. 1/93 dated 28-2-1993, and whether the benefit could be denied on the basis that the goods were cleared under brand names belonging to another person.

Analysis: The exemption was denied on the allegation that the assessee had used the brand names "Philco" and "Windsor and Wilson" on pressure cookers belonging to other concerns. The record, however, showed that the assessee manufactured only pressure cookers and cleared them under its own brand name "Windsor". There was no evidence that the brand name "Windsor" belonged to another person, and no tangible material established that the assessee had ever cleared pressure cookers under the brand names "Philco" or "Windsor and Wilson". The statement of one of the partners did not contain any admission of such use, and the departmental conclusion was based on a misreading of that statement. The invoices also reflected clearance under the brand name "Windsor" only.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the SSI exemption, and denial of the benefit on the alleged use of another's brand name was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: SSI exemption cannot be denied on the basis of alleged use of another's brand name unless the department proves, with cogent evidence, that the assessee actually used such brand name and that it belonged to another person.

---