SSI exemption denied for use of another's brand name, even where the brand owner makes different goods.

Use of another person's brand name or trade name on goods disentitles the assessee to SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE, and the exemption is to be strictly construed. The Tribunal rejected the view that denial depends on whether the brand owner manufactures identical or similar goods; use of the mark on different goods was still sufficient to bar the exemption. On that ground, the Revenue succeeded on merits. The matter was remanded only for examination of limitation by the adjudicating authority, while the finding denying SSI exemption was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent was entitled to SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE despite using another person's brand name on goods different from those manufactured by the brand owner.

Analysis: The respondent had used the emblem and word mark of another person on its chemical products. The earlier view that exemption could not be denied because the brand owner manufactured different goods was rejected. The Tribunal relied on the principle that exemption notifications must be strictly construed and that the notification did not require the branded goods to be the same as, or similar to, the goods manufactured by the brand owner. Use of another person's brand name was sufficient to deny the exemption, irrespective of whether the branded mark related to identical goods or different goods.

Conclusion: The respondent was not entitled to SSI exemption on this ground, and the Revenue succeeded on merits.

Final Conclusion: The matter was sent back for examination of the limitation issue by the adjudicating authority, while the finding on denial of SSI exemption was upheld in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: For SSI exemption, use of another person's brand name or trade name disentitles the assessee even if the mark is used on goods different from those manufactured by the brand owner.

---