SSI exemption and brand name use: Revenue must prove the mark belongs to another person before denying relief.

Use of the name "Shyamala" on PVC pipes did not, on the record described, establish use of another person's brand name so as to deny SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93. The burden was on the Revenue to prove that the expression was in fact a registered or otherwise established trade or brand name of another person, and that proof was absent. The note treats the expression as a company name rather than a brand name, so mere use of that name did not automatically disqualify the assessee from exemption. The exemption claim was therefore restored with consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether use of the name "Shyamala" on PVC pipes amounted to use of another person's brand name so as to deny the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93.

Analysis: The burden lay on the Revenue to establish that the mark used was a brand name of another person. The record did not show that "Shyamala" was a registered or proved trade/brand name of another person. On the facts, the expression was treated as a company name rather than a brand name, and mere use of such name did not by itself disentitle the assessee from the exemption.

Conclusion: The benefit of the notification was not deniable on the ground urged by the Revenue; the assessee succeeded on the issue.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the assessee's exemption claim was restored, with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: To deny SSI exemption on the ground of use of another's brand name, the Revenue must prove that the expression used is in fact the brand/trade name of another person; use of a company name, without such proof, does not automatically disqualify the assessee.

---