Brand name ownership supports SSI exemption where the assessee shows valid registration or permissible joint ownership.

Ownership of the relevant brand name determined eligibility for SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE. The deed of dissolution was read as a whole, with the clauses granting the respondents the right to use the brand name treated as controlling; the brand was also registered in the respondents' own name for the machines before the demand period. The authorities accepted that joint ownership of a brand name is legally permissible and that different persons may own the same brand for different goods where facts justify it. On that basis, the respondents were held to be the owners of the brand for the machines in dispute and entitled to SSI exemption, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were the owners of the brand name used on the goods manufactured by them, so as to claim SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 1.3.2003.

Analysis: The deed of dissolution was read as a whole, and Clause 10 was treated as subject to Clauses 8 and 9(a)(b), which granted the respondents the right to use the brand name RIAT for the machines in question. The respondents subsequently obtained registration of the brand in their own name for the relevant machines, and the brand name stood registered with them before the period of demand. The authorities also accepted that joint ownership of a brand name is legally permissible, and that the same brand name may be owned by different persons for different goods where the facts so justify.

Conclusion: The respondents were the owners of the brand name for the machines in question and were entitled to SSI exemption; the Revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: SSI exemption cannot be denied where the assessee establishes ownership of the relevant brand name, including by valid registration or permissible joint ownership, for the goods under dispute.

---