Brand name versus identification mark: use of "CYCLO" did not defeat SSI exemption on the facts noted.

Use of the word "CYCLO" on goods, by itself, did not amount to use of another person's brand name where the mark was applied only to identify the assessee's products and distinguish them from similar goods of other manufacturers. In the absence of evidence that the goods were marketed as those of, or on behalf of, the other concern, the mark was treated as an identification device rather than branding. The distinction between a mere identifying mark and a brand name preserved eligibility for small scale industry exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., and the differential duty demand was therefore not sustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee's use of the word "CYCLO" on its goods amounted to use of another person's brand name so as to deny small scale industry exemption and justify demand of differential duty.

Analysis: The goods were found embossed with "CYCLO" in capital letters without the cycloidal arrow mark used by the other concern. The mark was used by the assessee only to identify its products and distinguish them from similar goods supplied by different manufacturers. In the absence of evidence that the goods were marketed as goods of, or on behalf of, the other concern, the shortened name used for identification could not be treated as branding of another's goods. The distinction between a mere identification mark and a brand name was applied, and the cited exemptions under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. remained available.

Conclusion: The word "CYCLO" used by the assessee did not constitute use of another person's brand name, and the benefit of SSI exemption was admissible. The duty demand was not sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A mark used only for identification of the manufacturer, and not as another's brand name on the goods, does not amount to branded goods for denying SSI exemption.

---