SSI exemption cannot be denied for use of a family surname unless third-party brand ownership is proved.

SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. could not be denied merely because the assessee used the name "Rastogi", since the department failed to prove that it was a brand name belonging to another person. The Tribunal noted that the seized goods, panchnama and invoices did not show any brand name on the goods, and the reliance on connected persons' statements was insufficient to establish third-party brand ownership. A family surname, without proof of ownership as a brand by another person, does not by itself disqualify an assessee from exemption. The duty demand based on alleged use of the "Rastogi" brand name was therefore unsustainable and the exemption benefit was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. dated 01.03.2003 when the department alleged use of the name "Rastogi" as a brand name of another person.

Analysis: The demand was founded principally on statements of persons connected with the business, but the seized goods, panchnama, and invoices did not show any brand name on the manufactured or cleared goods. The Tribunal found that the department failed to establish that the assessee used any third-party brand name. Even assuming use of "Rastogi", the name was treated as a family surname and not a brand owned by another person. The Tribunal relied on the principle that use of a surname or family name, in the absence of proof of third-party ownership as a brand, does not by itself disqualify an assessee from exemption.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to SSI exemption and the denial of Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. benefit was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed and the duty demand based on alleged use of the "Rastogi" brand name was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: SSI exemption cannot be denied unless the department proves that the assessee used a brand name belonging to another person; use of a family surname, without proof of third-party ownership as a brand, does not amount to disqualifying brand-name use.

---