SSI exemption for logo use upheld where the foreign collaborator disowned ownership and no prohibited brand-name use was shown.

SSI exemption could not be denied merely because the assessee used a logo said to be deceptively similar to that of a foreign collaborator, where the collaborator expressly certified that the logo was the assessee's own and raised no objection to its use during the collaboration period. The Tribunal applied the settled position that the notification did not bar exemption on deceptive similarity alone, and that denial required a proper basis showing prohibited brand-name use. On those facts, the assessee remained entitled to the exemption, and the revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to Small Scale Exemption when the logo used by it was alleged to belong to a foreign collaborator and was said to be deceptively similar to that collaborator's logo.

Analysis: The foreign company expressly certified that the logo used by the Indian assessee was its own logo and that it had no objection to its use during the period of collaboration. On the facts, the allegation was not that the assessee was using the same brand name of another, but only that the logo was deceptively similar. The settled position applied by the Tribunal was that the notification did not bar exemption merely because of deceptive similarity, and the revenue had no basis to deny the benefit once the foreign company had disowned the logo.

Conclusion: The assessee was eligible for the exemption and the revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) granting SSI exemption was upheld and the revenue appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption cannot be denied on the ground of use of a deceptively similar logo where the other party has disowned ownership and the notification does not prohibit such use.

---