Appeal granted due to brand ownership issue, appellants entitled to SSI notification benefit.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellants relief in a case concerning the denial of SSI notification benefit due to brand name ownership issues. The revenue failed to provide substantial evidence establishing brand ownership by another party, leading to the decision that the appellants were entitled to the notification benefit. The lower authorities' decision was criticized for lack of thorough investigation, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief pronounced at the hearing's conclusion.

---

---

Issues:
Claim of SSI notification benefit based on brand name ownership.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, challenging the denial of SSI notification benefit due to brand name ownership issues. The appellants, engaged in mineral water manufacturing, used the brand name "AQUA HUNDRED" on their product. The revenue alleged that the appellants were not entitled to the notification benefit as the brand name did not belong to them, relying on a brochure indicating the brand's existence in Nepal. The lower authorities confirmed a duty demand, imposed penalties, and demanded interest. The first appellate authority upheld this decision, leading the appellants to approach the Tribunal for relief.

During the proceedings, the appellants' advocate argued that the brand name did not exclusively belong to any individual, emphasizing that multiple family members used it. Referring to a Board's Circular, she highlighted that lack of ownership of a brand name should not disqualify a unit from SSI exemption. On the other hand, the Departmental Representative supported the Order-in-Appeal.

Upon careful examination of the case records, the Tribunal noted that the revenue's case heavily relied on a statement asserting the brand name's ownership by another person, without substantial evidence. The burden of proof, as per the Tribunal, lay on the revenue to establish brand ownership by another party. Criticizing the lack of thorough investigation, the Tribunal found no merit in the lower authorities' decision. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, granting the appellants consequential relief. The operative part of the order was pronounced at the conclusion of the hearing.

---