Common brand name does not by itself bar SSI exemption when joint ownership and use are shown.

Small scale industry exemption was available where the brand name was jointly owned and used under an agreement allocating territorial areas of operation. The materials showed that the mark had been acquired from earlier owners and used jointly, and the Revenue did not prove exclusive ownership by another person so as to defeat the exemption. Applying the principle that ineligibility must be established by the party alleging it, the common or co-owned brand name did not by itself bar SSI relief, and the assessee was entitled to the exemption.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to small scale industry exemption when the brand name was jointly owned and used with another unit.

Analysis: The agreement between the units showed joint ownership of the brand name and allocation of territorial areas of operation. The materials on record also showed that the brand name had been acquired from earlier owners and thereafter used jointly. The Revenue did not establish that the brand name belonged exclusively to another person so as to disqualify the assessee from the exemption. In such a situation, the principle that the person alleging ineligibility must prove the allegation applied, and the case fell within the line of authority recognizing that a common or co-owned brand name does not by itself bar the exemption.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the benefit of the SSI exemption under the notifications in question, and the Revenue appeal failed.

---