Brand name exclusion under SSI exemption applies despite later trademark registration and supports extended limitation for suppression.

Goods bearing another person's brand name or logo remain outside the small scale exemption under Notification No. 8/2003, and a private memorandum of understanding or later trademark registration does not override that exclusion unless it amounts to a valid assignment of exclusive rights. Continued use of the other person's logo on goods and cartons, coupled with non-registration and failure to file returns, supported suppression of material facts and justified invocation of the extended limitation period. The penalty was also sustained because the dispute was not a mere debatable interpretation issue in light of the settled exclusion principle.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to small scale exemption under Notification No. 8/2003 when the goods bore the brand name and logo of another person and the assessee relied on a memorandum of understanding and subsequent trademark registration. (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable in the subsequent show cause notices. (iii) Whether penalty was liable to be set aside on the ground that the dispute involved interpretation of the exemption notification.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to small scale exemption under Notification No. 8/2003 when the goods bore the brand name and logo of another person and the assessee relied on a memorandum of understanding and subsequent trademark registration.

Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 8/2003 does not apply to specified goods bearing the brand name or trade name of another person. The memorandum of understanding produced by the assessee was only an understanding for business dealings and did not amount to a deed of assignment. It was neither notarised nor registered and did not establish exclusive ownership of the brand. The goods continued to carry the brand name and logo associated with the other person, including after registration, and the registration did not cover the logo used on the goods and cartons. The controlling principle is that use of another person's brand name or trade name, even with consent or later registration, does not take the goods out of the exclusion clause in the exemption notification.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the small scale exemption. The demand based on denial of exemption was against the assessee and in favour of Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable in the subsequent show cause notices.

Analysis: The assessee was not registered and did not file returns during the relevant period. The continued use of the other person's logo on the goods and cartons was noticed only on inspection, showing suppression of material facts. In such circumstances, the subsequent notices were not barred by limitation and the extended period was correctly invoked.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was validly invoked against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether penalty was liable to be set aside on the ground that the dispute involved interpretation of the exemption notification.

Analysis: The assessee's conduct showed manufacture and clearance of goods bearing another person's brand name and logo despite the clear exclusion in the notification. The issue was not a mere debatable interpretation in the facts of the case, and the legal position was already settled by binding precedent.

Conclusion: Penalty was not liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The denial of SSI exemption, the invocation of the extended period, and the penalty were all sustained, and the appeals failed in entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods bearing the brand name or trade name of another person are excluded from SSI exemption under the notification, and neither a private understanding nor subsequent trademark registration can override that exclusion; suppression of material facts permits invocation of the extended period.

---