Brand ownership and small scale exemption upheld where valid assignments established lawful use, defeating duty demand and penalties.

Ownership of the brand names through valid deeds of assignment entitled the manufacturers to small scale exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE, because the exemption denial depended on the brands not being lawfully owned by them. The appellate finding that both brand names had been legally and effectively assigned was not shown to suffer from any material infirmity, so the foundation for the show cause notice fell away. On that basis, the duty demand, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties were not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were the rightful owners of the brand names used on the manufactured goods and, consequently, entitled to Small Scale Exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003, making the duty demand and confiscation unsustainable.

Analysis: The findings of the appellate authority that the respondents were lawfully holding ownership of both brand names through valid deeds of assignment were not challenged on any substantial ground. Once ownership of the brands was accepted, the basis for denying the exemption disappeared, and the show cause notice and the resulting demand could not be sustained. The record did not disclose any infirmity in the conclusion that the assignments were legal and effective for the relevant purpose.

Conclusion: The respondents were entitled to the exemption and the demand, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties were not sustainable.

---