Brand-name restriction under SSI exemption applies only when the brand owner is ineligible under the notification.

Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was not denied where the assessee's goods bore the brand name of a registered small-scale unit. The relevant disqualification under para 4 applies only when the brand name belongs to another person who is not eligible for exemption under the notification. On the facts recorded, the brand name owner was an eligible SSI unit, and the Tribunal treated mineral water as excisable; the Department's objection that the owner's product was allegedly non-excisable did not attract the restriction. The SSI exemption was therefore held to be available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. when the brand name owner of the mark used on the assessee's goods was a registered small scale unit and the Department denied exemption on the premise that the brand name owner was not eligible because its product was allegedly non-excisable.

Analysis: The decisive consideration was the scope of para 4 of Notification No. 1/93-C.E., which denies exemption only when the specified goods bear the brand name of another person who is not eligible for exemption under the notification. The record showed that the brand name owner was a registered SSI unit, and the Tribunal accepted that mineral water was excisable. On that basis, the brand name owner could not be treated as ineligible for exemption, and the disqualification under para 4 was not attracted.

Conclusion: The denial of SSI exemption was unsustainable and the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E.

Ratio Decidendi: Disentitlement under a brand-name restriction applies only where the brand name belongs to a person who is not eligible for exemption under the notification; a registered SSI unit owning the brand name is not disqualified merely because the Department disputes the excisability of its product.

---