SSI exemption and brand name use: strict proof of valid assignment or transmission was required, and denial was upheld.

Use of the brand name "Plaza" on excisable goods was central to the SSI exemption dispute under Notification No. 8/2002-CE. The record showed prior ownership and use of the mark by earlier entities, but the claimed assignment or transmission in favour of the units was not proved by reliable evidence, including clear trade mark register entries. In family-connected units, entitlement to the exemption required strict proof that the brand name was not that of another person, and that burden was not discharged. The denial of SSI exemption was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the manufacturing units were entitled to small scale industry exemption under Notification No. 8/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 when the goods bore the brand name "Plaza", and whether the claimed assignment or transmission of that brand name was proved.

Analysis: The use of the brand name "Plaza" on the excisable goods was not in dispute. The controversy was whether the units used the brand name on their own account or whether it was the brand name of another person. The record showed a history of the brand name being owned and used by earlier entities and later assigned at different times, but there was no categorical evidence of proper entries in the trade mark register or other reliable proof establishing valid assignment or transmission in favour of the appellants. In family-connected units, entitlement to exemption required clear and strict proof, which was not available on record.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to the SSI exemption and the denial of exemption was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A manufacturer claiming SSI exemption must strictly prove that the brand name used is not the brand name of another person and that any claimed assignment or transmission of that brand name is legally and factually established by reliable evidence.

---