K.K. Usha, J. (President) - (1.)WHEN the stay petition came up for hearing it was agreed that the appeal itself can be disposed of. We, therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal.
(2.)The issue raised in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2000 dated 1-3-2000. The appellant is manufacturing mineral water under the brand name "Kingfisher" which belongs to M/s. United Breweries Limited. The brand name is used by the appellant as per the terms of an agreement between the appellant and M/s. United Breweries Limited. According to the appellant since the brand name is being used by it as per the permission granted by the owner of the brand name under Franchise Agreement, it is entitled to claim SSI exemption under notification No. 8/2000. In support of the above contention the learned Counsel for the appellant sought to place reliance on several decisions of this Tribunal.
We are not able to accept the above contention of the appellant. The ratio of the decisions relied on by the appellant will not be applicable in the facts of the present case. There has been no transfer of the brand name "Kingfisher" to the appellant by M/s. United Breweries Limited. As per the terms of agreement only a permission is granted to the appellant to use the brand name. Clause 6 of the agreement as referred above reads follows:-

"6. Nothing herein shall give the users any interest in the Trade Mark or in any label, design, etc. used in connection therewith, it being agreed and understood that only a mere permission uncoupled with any interest is given by the Proprietors to the Users to use the said Trade Mark, label, designs etc. in connection with the goods and the said use shall be in such a manner as to clearly indicate that the Proprietors on all matters concerning the Trade Mark shall be final and conclusive and not subject to question by the Users."

(3.)IT will be clear from the above that there has not been any transfer of ownership of the registered Trade Mark "Kingfisher" in favour of appellant. If that be so, the appellant is disqualified to get the benefit of SSI unit under Notification No. 8/2000 as it is manufacturing mineral water bearing the brand name of another person. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention raised by the appellant in this appeal on its duty liability. We affirm the finding on duty liability of the appellant.