Trade mark rights under a settlement can preserve SSI exemption despite later registration in one party's name.

A settlement agreement gave the parties equal and independent rights to use the trade mark EVEREST for the same line of manufacture, so the assessee was not using a brand name belonging exclusively to another person. The later registration of the mark in one individual's name did not override the pre-existing entitlement created by the settlement. On that basis, the assessee remained entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003, and denial of SSI exemption on the ground of use of another person's brand name was not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was disentitled to the benefit of Notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 on the ground that the brand name used on the goods belonged to another person.

Analysis: The settlement agreement between the parties conferred equal rights on all concerned to use the brand name EVEREST individually or jointly for the same line of manufacture. On that basis, the respondent was using a brand name in which it had an independent right and not a brand name belonging exclusively to a third party. The later registration of the mark in the name of one individual did not alter the pre-existing entitlement created by the settlement arrangement. The facts were distinguishable from cases where the assessee merely had a limited permission to use another's registered mark.

Conclusion: The respondent was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 08/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003 and the demand could not be sustained on the ground of use of another person's brand name.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a settlement or similar arrangement gives all parties an equal and independent right to use a trade mark, the assessee cannot be treated as using the brand name of another person for denying SSI exemption merely because the mark was later registered in one party's name.

---