Small-scale exemption and brand-name use: absence of proof that markings belonged to others kept most goods eligible for relief.

Small-scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93 was unavailable only where the goods were manufactured under a brand name used by another person so as to show a trade connection with that person. As the alleged brand-name owners, except in relation to "Ujala", disowned any connection with the marks and no independent evidence showed that the words on the voltmeters and ammeters belonged to other traders, the disqualification was not established for those goods. The finding that all disputed markings were brand names of others was set aside, and the duty demand was confined to goods bearing the brand name "Ujala", with the penalty reduced accordingly.

---

---

Issues: Whether the small-scale exemption was unavailable on the footing that the goods were manufactured under the brand name of another person.

Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 1/93 was denied only if the goods were produced under a brand name used by another person so as to establish a trade connection between that person and the goods. Except for "Ujala", the alleged brand-name owners disowned any claim or relationship with the marks used on the goods. There was no independent evidence to show that the words affixed on the voltmeters and ampere meters were brand names belonging to particular traders. In the absence of proof that the marks were brand names of others, the disqualification for exemption was not made out for those goods.

Conclusion: The finding that all the disputed markings were brand names of others could not be sustained. Relief was granted to that extent, and the duty demand was confined to the goods produced under the brand name "Ujala", with the penalty reduced accordingly.

---