SSI exemption denied for use of another's brand name under a mere licence, while penalty was set aside on the facts.

Use of another person's brand name under a mere licence or permission disqualifies a manufacturer from small scale industry exemption where the trade mark owner retains no transfer of ownership or proprietary interest. The exemption claim under Notification No. 8/2000 was rejected because the goods were manufactured under another's registered brand name, so the statutory condition for SSI relief was not met and duty liability was upheld. On penalty, the monetary sanction was considered unwarranted on the facts and was set aside. The article therefore states that the exemption failed on merits, while the penal part of the adjudication did not survive.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant was entitled to small scale exemption under Notification No. 8/2000 dated 1-3-2000 when it used another person's brand name under an agreement; (ii) Whether the penalty imposed was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant was entitled to small scale industry exemption under Notification No. 8/2000 dated 1-3-2000 when it used another person's brand name under an agreement.

Analysis: The exemption was claimed on the basis that the brand name was used with the permission of the brand owner under a franchise arrangement. The agreement, however, showed only a mere permission to use the trade mark and expressly denied any transfer of interest or ownership in the mark. Since the goods were manufactured under the brand name of another person and there was no transfer of the registered trade mark, the statutory condition for the exemption was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The claim to SSI exemption was rejected and the duty liability was upheld against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed was sustainable.

Analysis: The demand related to a limited period and the record did not justify the penal consequence in the facts of the case. In view of the circumstances, the monetary penalty was considered unwarranted.

Conclusion: The penalty was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The exemption claim failed on merits, but the penal part of the adjudication did not survive and was annulled.

Ratio Decidendi: Use of another person's brand name under a mere licence or permission, transfer of ownership or proprietary interest in the trade mark, disentitles the manufacturer from SSI exemption reserved for units not using another's brand name; penalty may still be deleted on the facts of the case.

---