SSI exemption denied for use of another's brand name; retrospective trademark registration did not cure the excise defect.

SSI exemption was denied where goods were cleared under a brand name owned by another person. The retrospective registration of the trade mark did not change the excise position for the relevant period, because the factual finding remained that the assessee was using another entity's brand name. Penalty on the Managing Director was sustained on the basis of active involvement in the brand-name use, preparation of the assignment deed, and non-filing of the required declaration. The demand, interest, and penalties were therefore maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were entitled to small scale industry exemption when the brand name used during the relevant period belonged to another entity; (ii) Whether the penalty imposed on the Managing Director was justified.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were entitled to small scale industry exemption when the brand name used during the relevant period belonged to another entity.

Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 1/93 dated 01.03.1993 was unavailable where the goods were cleared under a brand name owned by another person. On the facts found, the brand name 'ALASKA' was held to belong to M/s. Vinko Auto Industries Ltd., Jalandhar during the relevant period. The purported assignment deed and later trade mark registration did not displace the finding that, for excise purposes, the appellants were using a brand name not owned by them during the period of demand. The retrospective effect of trade mark registration could not confer excise exemption when the substantive factual position showed use of another's brand name.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to SSI exemption for the relevant period.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed on the Managing Director was justified.

Analysis: The record showed active involvement in the use of the brand name and in the preparation of the assignment deed in connection with the disputed clearance pattern. The failure to file the necessary declaration and the role attributed to the Managing Director supported invocation of penal consequences under Rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Conclusion: The penalty on the Managing Director was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The demand, interest, and penalties were sustained, and both appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: SSI exemption is not available where the goods are cleared under a brand name owned by another person, and retrospective trade mark registration does not by itself confer excise exemption for the period when the brand was not shown to be owned by the assessee.

---