SSI exemption and brand ownership proof: mere trademark correspondence was insufficient to deny relief and sustain duty demand.

SSI exemption could not be denied unless Revenue proved that the clearances bore a brand name belonging to another person. The record showed that the mark "Newman" had been applied for by another company, but the evidence did not establish that the brand actually belonged to the co-noticee. Mere correspondence connected with trademark registration, or the fact that the same individual signed such correspondence, was insufficient to prove ownership where the entities were separate legal persons and the assessee consistently denied any such ownership. On that basis, the duty demand and penalties were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was wrongly denied the benefit of SSI exemption on the ground that the goods were cleared under the brand name "Newman" belonging to another person, and whether the consequent duty demand and penalties were sustainable.

Analysis: The dispute turned on ownership of the brand name "Newman" during the relevant period. The record showed that the other company had applied for registration of the mark, and the material relied upon by Revenue did not establish that the brand name belonged to the co-noticee assessee. The mere fact that the same individual signed the correspondence relating to trademark registration did not justify treating the mark as belonging to the co-noticee, especially when the entities were separate legal persons and the assessee consistently denied such ownership. On the evidence, the foundation for denying SSI exemption was not proved.

Conclusion: The denial of SSI exemption was unsustainable. The duty demand and penalties were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: SSI exemption cannot be denied unless it is proved that the clearances bore a brand name belonging to another person; mere correspondence or association with a trademark application is insufficient to establish such ownership.

---