Prior continuous use of a brand name can preserve SSI exemption despite later trademark registration in another's name.

Continuous prior use of a brand name can support SSI exemption even where the mark is later registered in another party's name. The appellants showed prima facie use of the mark since 1981, while registration in another's favour arose only in 2004; on that factual basis, the saving provisions protecting vested rights under trademark law were applied to preserve the prior user's entitlement. The tribunal also relied on the principle that exemption is not denied where the assessee demonstrates prior use of the brand name and no intention to indicate a connection with another person's goods. A strong prima facie case was found, so pre-deposit was waived and recovery stayed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants had made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 in view of their claim that continuous prior use of the brand name 'Mankoo' entitled them to the benefit of SSI exemption notwithstanding later registration of the mark in another's name.

Analysis: The brand name was found to have been used continuously by the appellants since 1981, whereas registration in favour of another party occurred only in 2004. On that factual footing, the saving provisions protecting vested rights under the trademark statutes were applied to hold that subsequent registration would not, prima facie, divest a prior continuous user of its right to use the mark. The reasoning was also supported by the principle that exemption under the relevant notification is not denied where the assessee can show prior use of the brand name and absence of the intention to indicate a connection with another person's goods.

Conclusion: The appellants established a strong prima facie case, and the condition of pre-deposit was waived with recovery stayed.

---