In the present case (2007 -TMI - 1914 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) assessee was using three un registered brand names.

Department has found that the same brand name was being used by some other persons also.

Earlier the matter was decided by the honorable tribunal against the assessee and denied the SSI exemption.

Manufacturer approached Apex Court for justice. Honorable SC has referred the matter back to tribunal to decide the case on merits.

Now Tribunal has held that:

Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the said three trade names "Amigen, Sorgen and Sigum" do not belong to any person and more specifically M/s. Dai Ichi Karkaria Ltd., we hold that the impugned order, denying the benefit of SSI exemption to the appellant on these three products, is liable to be set aside and we do so. The impugned order to the extent on denying the benefit of SSI exemption to these three trade names is set aside and the appeal of the appellant to that extent is allowed.

SSI exemption protection: identical unregistered brand names do not bar exemption when no ownership exists. The tribunal addressed whether denial of the SSI exemption is justified when identical unregistered trade names are used by multiple manufacturers and found that where such trade names do not belong to any person or entity, refusal of the SSI exemption on that ground is inappropriate because absence of proprietary ownership of the marks does not support denial of the excise benefit.