Trade mark assignment relation-back preserved small-scale exemption; brand-name bar did not apply and penalty also failed.

A trade mark assignment shown to take effect for the relevant clearance period established that the brand name did not belong to another person, so the small-scale exemption bar for use of another's brand name was not attracted. The certificate from the Trade Mark Registry and the relation-back principle under trade mark registration supported the assessee's title to the mark during the period in question. On that basis, the exemption was available, the duty demand could not be sustained, and the co-appellant's penalty also failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. for clearances of domestic floor mills bearing the brand name "Trimurti", and whether penalty could be sustained on the co-appellant on that basis.

Analysis: The certificate from the Trade Mark Registry showed that the brand name stood assigned to Unique Engineers with effect from 27-1-1987. Under Section 23(1) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, registration relates back to the date of application, and the assessee's title to the trade mark was therefore established for the relevant period. Since the brand name did not belong to another person during the period of clearances, the bar contained in paragraph 7 of the exemption notification was not attracted.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the exemption and the demand could not be sustained. The penalty on the co-appellant also failed.

Final Conclusion: Both appeals succeeded and the impugned order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a trade mark assignment is shown to have effect from a date covering the relevant clearances, the assessee cannot be denied small-scale exemption on the ground that the brand name belonged to another person.

---