SSI exemption denied where goods bore another person's brand name, even if the mark was registered for different goods.

A small scale industrial unit could not claim excise exemption where the specified goods bore a brand name belonging to another person. The Court applied the notification's Explanation VIII, under which a brand name or trade name includes any mark indicating a trade connection, whether registered or not, and held that permission to use another entity's mark did not make the user its owner. Registration of the mark for different goods did not change the position. The SSI exemption was therefore unavailable and the denial of exemption was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether a small scale industrial unit using a brand name owned by another person could claim exemption under the relevant excise notifications.

Analysis: The exemption under the notifications was unavailable where the specified goods bore a brand name, registered or not, of another person. Explanation VIII treated a brand name or trade name as any mark used in relation to specified goods to indicate a connection in the course of trade with some person. On the facts, the brand name was owned by a different entity, and permission to use it did not make the respondent the owner. The fact that the brand was registered for different goods did not alter the position, because use of another person's brand name was sufficient to attract the exclusion from exemption.

Conclusion: The respondent was not entitled to the SSI exemption, and the finding that it was using its own brand name was erroneous.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the order of the Tribunal was set aside, with the revenue's stand on denial of exemption upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an SSI unit uses a brand name or trade name belonging to another person, the exemption under the notification is denied, even if the goods on which the mark is used are different from the goods for which the mark is registered.

---