SSI exemption depends on proof of another person's brand name; a house mark alone is insufficient to deny relief.

SSI exemption could not be denied merely because the goods carried an emblem said to resemble another manufacturer's mark. The show cause notice did not clearly allege that the emblem belonged to that manufacturer, and the department produced no evidence that the mark was its brand name or trade name. Applying the distinction between a house mark, which identifies the manufacturer, and a product mark or brand name, by which goods are ordered and identified, the mark on the respondents' goods was treated as a house mark rather than another person's brand. The demand was therefore not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were entitled to SSI exemption when the goods carried an emblem alleged to be associated with another manufacturer, and whether the department had established that the emblem amounted to the other person's brand name or trade name so as to deny the exemption.

Analysis: The show cause notice did not clearly allege that the emblem belonged to the other manufacturer. The distinguishing principle between a house mark, used on all products to identify the manufacturer, and a product mark or brand name, by which the product itself is ordered and identified, governed the dispute. The mark used on the respondents' goods was found to be in the nature of a house mark and not the product mark of another person. No evidence was produced to show that the alleged trade mark belonged to the other manufacturer.

Conclusion: The respondents were not shown to have used another person's brand name or trade name so as to lose SSI exemption, and the demand was not sustainable.

---