Small scale industry exemption turns on proof that the brand name belongs to another ineligible person, not mere use of a mark.

Small scale industry exemption could not be denied merely because the goods bore the brand name "Yash". The disqualification applied only if the Revenue proved that the brand name belonged to another person who was ineligible for the exemption, and the Department failed to discharge that burden. The manufacturer's assertion that the monogram belonged to it was not controverted, so mere use of a brand name was insufficient to attract denial of the notification benefit. The demand was therefore set aside and the exemption was allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were disentitled to small scale industry exemption on the ground that they used the brand name "Yash", and whether the Revenue had proved that the brand name belonged to another ineligible person.

Analysis: The claimed disqualification under the exemption notification depended on establishing that the brand name used on the goods belonged to a person other than the manufacturer and that such other person was not eligible for the exemption. The Department did not controvert the appellants' assertion that the monogram belonged to them. Mere use of the brand name was not sufficient to deny the benefit unless ownership in another ineligible person was proved. The Revenue failed to discharge that burden.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to the exemption. The demand confirmed against them was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A manufacturer is not denied small scale industry exemption merely because a brand name is used; denial is permissible only when the Revenue proves that the brand name belongs to another person who is ineligible for the exemption.

---