Brand-name use and small-scale exemption turn on proof that the mark belongs to another person.

Small-scale exemption under excise law cannot be denied merely because goods bear a brand name unless the department proves that the brand name belongs to another person. The record did not identify any third party as owner of the mark, and the deletion of the words "of London" by trade mark authorities did not establish third-party ownership. In the absence of proof that the brand name was that of another person, denial of exemption was unjustified, and the assessee was held entitled to relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was using the brand name of another person so as to be denied the benefit of small-scale exemption.

Analysis: The benefit of the small-scale exemption is unavailable only when the goods bear the brand name or trade name of another person. The burden lies on the department to establish that the brand name used by the assessee belongs to someone else. The record did not identify any other person as owner of the brand name, and the reference to deletion of the words "of London" by the trade mark authorities did not establish ownership in a third party. In the absence of material showing that the brand name belonged to another person, denial of exemption was not justified.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the small-scale exemption and the demand could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the assessee was granted the relief sought.

Ratio Decidendi: Small-scale exemption cannot be denied on the ground of brand-name use unless the department proves that the brand name affixed on the goods belongs to another person.

---