SSI exemption and brand name use: own registered company name cannot be treated as another person's mark without proof of ownership.

SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. could not be denied merely because the goods bore the assessee's own registered name, as the Revenue had to prove that the mark was the brand name of another person and that it indicated a trade connection with that person. On the facts, no separate ownership of the name used on the goods was shown, and the Tribunal relied on earlier decisions holding that a company may use its own registered name on its products. The demand was therefore not sustainable and the denial of exemption failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was disentitled to Small Scale Industry exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. on the ground that the goods bore the brand name or trade name of another person.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the marking used on the goods could be treated as the brand name of another entity so as to attract the bar in the exemption notification. The assessee's company name was registered as Featherlite Seating System (P) Ltd., and the record did not establish that any separate entity had challenged or owned the name used on the goods. The burden lay on the Revenue to prove that the brand name belonged to another person and that the affixation indicated a trade connection with such other person. On the facts, the Tribunal found the matter covered by earlier decisions holding that a company is entitled to use its own registered name on its products and that mere assertion, without supporting evidence of ownership by another, is insufficient to deny SSI exemption.

Conclusion: The assessee was not liable to be denied SSI exemption on the ground of use of the name Featherlite, and the Revenue's challenge to the dropped demand failed.

---