Tribunal grants SSI exemption for bakery products sold under different brand name

The Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants, who were denied the Small Scale Industries (SSI) Exemption for selling bakery products under the brand name 'Nilgiris.' The Tribunal distinguished a Supreme Court judgment and referenced a similar case involving McDonald's, where the SSI exemption was granted despite products being sold under a different brand name. As the products were sold without the brand name on the packaging for immediate consumption and 'Nilgiris' was only mentioned on the bills, the Tribunal concluded the appellants were eligible for the SSI exemption, setting aside the denial order.

---

---

Issues: SSI Exemption denial based on brand name 'Nilgiris' on bakery products.

In this case, the appellants, engaged in the sale of bakery products, were denied the Small Scale Industries (SSI) Exemption due to selling Cakes and Pastries under the brand name 'Nilgiris' as per a Franchise Agreement. The appellants argued that they do not affix the brand name 'Nilgiris' on the products but only on the bills issued to the customers. They contended that selling the products in their restaurant without the brand name on the packaging should not disqualify them from the SSI exemption. The Tribunal referred to a similar case involving McDonald's outlet where the SSI exemption was granted despite the products being sold under a different brand name. The Revenue relied on a Supreme Court judgment involving a situation where a registered trade name was printed on the products leading to denial of benefits. The Tribunal distinguished the Apex Court judgment, emphasizing that in the present case, the products were not packed with the brand name 'Nilgiris' and were only sold in the restaurant, with the brand name appearing on the bills.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal observed the distinction between affixing a brand name on the products themselves versus merely mentioning it on the bills. Drawing parallels with the McDonald's case, where the SSI exemption was allowed despite the products being sold under a different brand name, the Tribunal found that the situation in this case was similar. Since the Cakes and Pastries were sold for immediate consumption without the brand name on the packaging, and only the bills carried the 'Nilgiris' name, the Tribunal concluded that the appellants were eligible for the SSI exemption. Therefore, the impugned order denying the exemption was set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on the precedent set in the Connaught Plaza Restaurant case.

---