SSI exemption and partner penalty: brand owned by family members was not treated as another person's mark.

SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. was available where the brand name used by the assessee, "Bintex", was registered in the names of family members, including the partner, because it could not be treated as a brand belonging to "another person". On that basis, the demand was not sustainable. The separate penalty on the partner under Rule 26 also could not survive, both because the principal demand failed and because a distinct penalty on the partner was impermissible where penalty had already been imposed on the partnership firm.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003-C.E. dated 01.03.2003 for clearances made under the brand name "Bintex", and whether the penalty imposed on the partner under Rule 26 could survive.

Analysis: The brand "Bintex" stood registered in the names of family members, including the appellant's partner, showing that the mark was not that of a stranger. Since the appellant firm used a brand name in which its partner was one of the owners, the brand could not be treated as belonging to "another person" for the purpose of denying the exemption. As the demand against the main appellant was unsustainable, the partner's penalty also could not be sustained; in any event, a separate penalty on the partner was impermissible where penalty had already been imposed on the partnership firm.

Conclusion: The appellant was held entitled to SSI exemption and the penalty on the partner was set aside.

---