SSI exemption and brand-name ownership: registered marks of another person keep goods outside the exemption unless legal transfer is proved

SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. is unavailable where goods bear a registered brand name of another person unless the assessee proves a legally recognised transfer or ownership of that mark. Permissive use under a dissolution deed, acquiescence, or concurrent user does not by itself remove the statutory bar, and a distinction between ISI and non-ISI goods does not change the brand-name position for the notification. Where duty is worked out from the sale price, it is to be recomputed on a cum-duty basis, and penalty may be withheld where the assessee had previously been allowed the benefit of the predecessor notification.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether goods manufactured under the brand name "SANT" were ineligible for SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. on the ground that the brand name belonged to another person; (ii) whether the duty demand was to be recalculated on a cum-duty basis and whether penalty was imposable.

Issue (i): Whether goods manufactured under the brand name "SANT" were ineligible for SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. on the ground that the brand name belonged to another person.

Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was available only if the specified goods did not bear the brand name or trade name of another person. The dissolution deed did not transfer ownership of the registered trade mark "SANT" to the appellant firm; it only permitted use of the mark for non-ISI items. The brand remained registered in the name of the continuing partners, and the appellant had no independent registration or adjudication establishing ownership. Arguments based on joint ownership, acquiescence, and concurrent user may be relevant in trade mark infringement proceedings, but they did not alter the fact that the goods bore a registered brand name of another person. The distinction between ISI and non-ISI goods also did not make them different goods for the purpose of the notification.

Conclusion: The appellant's goods were not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. and the bar relating to brand name of another person applied.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demand was to be recalculated on a cum-duty basis and whether penalty was imposable.

Analysis: The sale price had to be treated as cum-duty price, with deduction of excise duty while working out the demand. The Tribunal also found that no penalty should be imposed because the appellants had earlier been allowed the benefit of the predecessor notification.

Conclusion: The demand was to be recomputed on a cum-duty basis and the penalty was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The exemption claim failed on merits, but the duty liability was confined to a recomputed cum-duty basis and the penalty was deleted.

Ratio Decidendi: For SSI exemption, goods bearing a registered brand name of another person remain ineligible unless the assessee establishes a legally recognized transfer or ownership of that brand name; permissive use, acquiescence, or concurrent user does not by itself remove the statutory bar.

---