Commonly owned family brand use does not bar Small Scale Industry exemption where trademark ownership is shared.

Family concerns using the common brand name "Vivek" were held eligible for Small Scale Industry exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE because the record showed a civil arrangement permitting shared use and later trademark registration in the assessees' names, indicating common ownership rather than use of another person's brand. On that basis, the bar on exemption for use of another's brand name did not apply. The Revenue's objections regarding certain clearances and export-related goods did not survive once exemption eligibility was accepted on merits, and the departmental appeals were also treated as unsustainable under the applicable monetary-limit litigation policy.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether units run by members of the same family using the brand name "Vivek" were entitled to Small Scale Industry exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003. (ii) Whether the Revenue's challenge to inclusion of certain clearances and export-related goods survived in view of the assessee's eligibility to the exemption and the monetary limit policy.

Issue (i): Whether units run by members of the same family using the brand name "Vivek" were entitled to Small Scale Industry exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003.

Analysis: The brand name was used by different family firms, and the record showed a civil arrangement permitting all firms to use the mark. The trademark was subsequently registered in the names of the assessees, indicating common ownership rather than use of another person's brand. On those facts, the brand name could not be treated as belonging to a third party for denying exemption. The decision was also supported by the principle that use of a family brand by different family concerns does not, by itself, attract the bar against exemption where ownership is common.

Conclusion: The assessees were entitled to Small Scale Industry exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-CE dated 01.03.2003.

Issue (ii): Whether the Revenue's challenge to inclusion of certain clearances and export-related goods survived in view of the assessee's eligibility to the exemption and the monetary limit policy.

Analysis: Once exemption eligibility was upheld on merits, the objection regarding inclusion of the export-related clearances did not affect the result against the assessees. In addition, the Revenue appeals were below the monetary threshold prescribed under the Board's litigation policy, which independently supported non-maintainability of the departmental challenge.

Conclusion: The Revenue's appeals were not sustainable and were dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The assessees succeeded on the exemption issue, and the departmental challenge failed both on merits and under the applicable litigation policy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a brand name is commonly owned and registered in the names of the family concerns using it, exemption cannot be denied on the footing that the assessees are using another person's brand name.

---