SSI exemption denied for using another group company's brand name; suppression justified extended limitation.

SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE was unavailable where the manufacturer used the brand name of another group company, since the benefit is confined to units not using another person's brand. Use of the registered mark of a different legal entity, even within the same family group, attracted the bar on exemption. Non-disclosure of that brand usage to the department amounted to suppression of facts, so the extended limitation period applied. The plea of bona fide belief did not survive on the record, and ignorance of law could not defeat the demand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to Small Scale Industry exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 while using the brand name of another group company, and whether the demand was barred by limitation on the plea of bona fide belief and absence of suppression.

Analysis: The appellant manufactured goods under the brand name "Autopal", which was registered in the name of another entity of the same group. The exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE was unavailable because the benefit is confined to units not using the brand name of another person. The use of an established brand name owned by a different legal entity, even within a family group, indicated an attempt to obtain the advantage of that brand and attracted the bar on exemption. As the appellant had not disclosed the use of the other company's brand name to the department, suppression of facts was made out. The plea of bona fide belief did not survive on the record, and ignorance of law could not defeat the demand.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to SSI exemption, and the demand was within the extended period. The appeal failed.

---