SSI exemption not lost where the mark used was the Director's surname, not another person's branded name.

A small scale industrial unit is denied excise exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE only if it is found, on facts, to be using the branded name of another person. The Tribunal found that the mark used was the surname of the Director and not another person's brand name, so para 4 of the notification was not attracted. The denial of SSI exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the Tribunal's order was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent, being a small scale industrial unit, was disentitled to exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28.02.1993 on the ground that it used the branded name of another person.

Analysis: The respondent was an SSI unit, but exemption was denied on the footing that it used another person's brand name, attracting para 4 of the notification. The Tribunal's finding of fact was that the respondent was not using the branded name of another person and that the mark used was the surname of the Director. On that factual finding, the case did not fall within the mischief of para 4 of the notification.

Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to the SSI exemption and the denial of exemption was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the order of the Tribunal was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A small scale unit is not denied exemption under para 4 of Notification No. 1/93-CE unless it is found, on facts, to be using the branded name of another person.

---