SSI exemption turns on use of another person's brand name; own manufacturer label kept the exemption available.

SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2002 was available because the exemption bar applies only where the goods bear the brand name or trade name, registered or not, of another person. On inspection of the machine label, the Court found that it showed the respondent's own name and did not display the other entity's mark "SAMS". Accepting the concurrent factual finding that the machines were represented as manufactured by the respondent, the Court treated the Supreme Court authorities on similar SSI exemption disputes as directly applicable. The respondent was therefore entitled to the exemption, and the demand and penalty could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to Small Scale Industry exemption under Notification No. 8/2002 dated 1 March 2002 and its amendment, or whether the use of the mark on the machine label attracted the bar relating to goods bearing the brand name or trade name of another person.

Analysis: The exemption notification denied benefit only where the specified goods bore a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, of another person. On inspection of the metal label affixed to the machines, the Court found that the label displayed the respondent's own name and did not bear the brand name "SAMS" of the other entity. The Court agreed with the concurrent factual finding that the machines were shown as manufactured by the respondent itself. The cited Supreme Court decisions on similar SSI exemption disputes were treated as directly applicable, because the decisive consideration was whether the assessee was using another person's brand name.

Conclusion: The respondent was not using the brand name or trade name of another person and was entitled to the SSI exemption. The demand and penalty could not be sustained, and the appeals failed.

---