SSI exemption and brand name dispute: no complete pre-deposit waiver where another firm owned the trademark used.

CESTAT Chennai examined whether the appellant had shown a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit in a dispute arising from denial of SSI exemption for use of another entity's brand name. The Tribunal found, on the trade mark registration and surrounding facts, that the brand name belonged to another firm and had been used by the appellant, so the claim of common ownership through a partner was not sufficient at this stage. The relied-upon precedent was distinguished on facts. Complete waiver was refused, but partial relief was granted by directing a further deposit and staying recovery of the balance on compliance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant had made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit in respect of the demand, interest and penalty arising from denial of SSI exemption on the ground of use of another entity's brand name.

Analysis: The appellant claimed SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003 dated 01.03.2003 and contended that the brand name was available for use because of a common partner. The Tribunal found, on the trade mark registration and the surrounding facts, that the brand name was owned by another firm engaged in the business and that the appellant had used another firm's brand name. The decision relied upon by the appellant was distinguished on facts. On that basis, the appellant was held not to have established a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit.

Conclusion: Complete waiver of pre-deposit was ed, but the appellant was granted partial relief by being directed to deposit a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000, with waiver of the balance and stay of recovery upon such deposit.

---