Brand name exemption bar did not apply where ownership of the mark was not proved against the assessee.

Small scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE could not be denied merely because the goods bore the brand name "SUMER" where the record did not establish that another person owned the brand during the relevant period. Long and uninterrupted use of the mark by the assessee, its own registration efforts, the absence of effective objection from the alleged owner, and the assignment or relinquishment deed supported the conclusion that the brand name was not shown to belong to another person. On that basis, the bar against use of another person's brand name did not apply, and denial of the exemption was unjustified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was disentitled to the small scale exemption on the ground that the goods bore the brand name of another person.

Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE was denied only on the premise that the brand name "SUMER" belonged to another concern. The record did not show cogent evidence that the other concern continued to be the owner after expiry of the original registration and non-renewal. The assessee's long and uninterrupted use of the brand name, coupled with its own application for registration and the absence of any effective objection by the alleged owner, supported the conclusion that the brand name was not shown to belong to another person during the relevant period. The assignment or relinquishment deed also supported the assessee's claim, and the effective date mentioned in the deed was accepted.

Conclusion: The assessee was not using the brand name of another person so as to attract the bar in Notification No. 1/93-CE, and denial of the exemption was unjustified.

---