SSI exemption and brand name use: registered logos held distinct, so the embargo for another person's brand did not apply.

SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/2003-Central Excise was not barred where the goods were not shown to be cleared under the brand name of another person. The relevant test was whether the appellants' logos or marks were in fact the brand names of a third party so as to attract the Para 4 embargo. As the trade mark authority treated the logos used by the appellants and the other concern as different and distinct, and the appellants held registration for the logo used, a mere application filed by another concern was insufficient to establish use of another person's brand name. The appellants were therefore entitled to the exemption.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were denied Small Scale Industry exemption under Notification No. 1/2003-Central Excise dated 01.03.2003 on the ground that the goods were cleared under the brand name of another person.

Analysis: The relevant inquiry was whether the brand names used by the appellants were the brand names of another person so as to attract the embargo in Para 4 of the exemption notification. The record showed that the trade mark authority had recognized the logos used by the appellants and the other concern as different and distinct. The use of a logo for which registration stood in the appellants' name, and the mere filing of an application by another concern, was held insufficient to establish that the appellants were using the brand name of another person.

Conclusion: The appellants were not using the brand name of another person and were entitled to the benefit of the SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/2003-Central Excise dated 01.03.2003.

---