Assigned brand name supports SSI exemption where ownership is validly transferred and registration timing is irrelevant.

Valid assignment of a brand name prevents denial of small scale industry exemption on the ground that the goods bore another person's brand name. The operative question was ownership and use of the mark, not the timing of registration before the trade mark authority. Where the brand name had been assigned to the assessee by deed of assignment, and no use of any other identified person's brand name was established, registration status was irrelevant. An unregistered trade mark did not by itself defeat the exemption, so the exemption was available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was ineligible for small scale industry exemption on the ground that the excisable goods bore another person's brand name, and whether assignment of the brand name entitled the respondent to the exemption.

Analysis: The dispute turned on ownership and use of the brand name, not merely on the date of registration before the trade mark authority. The factual finding accepted by the appellate authority was that the brand name had been assigned to the respondent by a deed of assignment, and there was no established use of any other identified person's brand name in the goods cleared by the respondent. Registration was held to be irrelevant where ownership stood assigned, and the existence of an unregistered trade mark did not by itself defeat the exemption. The governing principle applied was that, so long as the assignment subsists, use of the assigned brand name does not make the assessee a user of another's brand name for SSI exemption purposes.

Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to the SSI exemption and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the brand name stands validly assigned to the assessee, mere absence or timing of trade mark registration does not disqualify the assessee from SSI exemption on the ground of use of another person's brand name.

---