SSI exemption on branded detergent goods cannot be denied without reliable proof that the brand belongs to another concern.

SSI exemption on detergent goods cleared under the brand name "Blue Dot" depended on whether the brand belonged to the assessee or to another concern. The department's denial of exemption rested on an unproved letter and lacked independent evidence of third-party ownership, while an agreement dated 1-4-1992 and a contemporaneous cancellation document supported the assessee's claim of ownership. An earlier appellate finding that the assessee owned the brand name had also attained finality because no departmental appeal was filed. On that basis, the demand was unsustainable and SSI exemption could not be denied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to SSI exemption on detergent goods cleared under the brand name "Blue Dot", and whether the brand name belonged to the appellant or to another entity.

Analysis: The duty demand rested entirely on the allegation that the brand name "Blue Dot" belonged to another concern, but the record disclosed no independent evidence supporting that assertion apart from an unproved departmental letter. On the other hand, the record contained an agreement dated 1-4-1992 and a contemporaneous cancellation document, which supported the appellant's case that the brand name remained with it. The finding in the impugned order that the brand belonged to the other concern was also inconsistent with the earlier appellate order, which had already held the appellant to be the owner of the brand name and had attained finality as no departmental appeal was filed. In these circumstances, the denial of SSI exemption could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to SSI exemption and the duty demand based on alleged use of another's brand name was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where denial of SSI exemption on branded goods is founded on disputed brand ownership, the department must establish ownership with reliable evidence; in the absence of such proof, and where the record supports the assessee's ownership, exemption cannot be denied.

---