Common brand name use did not defeat SSI exemption where family members were permitted to use 'KUMAR' on different goods.

A jointly used family brand name, supported by a memorandum of understanding allowing each member to use it on different goods, was not treated as the exclusive property of one concern. On that basis, the brand name 'KUMAR' could not bar the assessee from claiming small scale industry exemption, because exclusivity is required to deny the benefit. The order confirming duty, penalty and confiscation was therefore set aside and the exemption under Notification No. 01/1993 was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was disentitled to small scale industry exemption on the ground that the brand name 'KUMAR' exclusively belonged to another concern.

Analysis: The arrangement between the family members showed that the name 'KUMAR' belonged to the family as a whole and that each member was permitted to use it for the goods manufactured by him, with the understanding that they would not use the same name on identical products. On that basis, the brand name could not be treated as the exclusive property of M/s. Rump Industries. The original authority had correctly appreciated the memorandum of understanding and held that the appellant was not barred from claiming the exemption.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 01/1993 and the Revenue's challenge had no merit.

Final Conclusion: The order confirming duty, penalty and confiscation was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A common or jointly usable brand name, supported by an understanding permitting family members to use it on different goods, is not an exclusively owned brand name so as to deny small scale industry exemption.

---