Common brand name use does not deny small-scale exemption unless exclusive ownership by another manufacturer is proved.

Use of a common brand name does not by itself bar small-scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. The assessee's labels were visually distinct, and the record did not establish that "PARKMAN-T" was exclusively owned by another manufacturer. The department failed to discharge the burden of proving exclusive ownership, while the Board's circular on common brand names supported exemption where the mark is not owned by a particular person. Subsequent registration of the brand in the assessee's favour further indicated that exclusive ownership by the other unit was not shown. The denial of SSI exemption was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the denial of small-scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was justified on the ground that the assessee used the brand name "PARKMAN-T", and whether such brand name could be treated as belonging exclusively to another manufacturer so as to attract Paragraph 4 of the notification.

Analysis: The labels used by the assessee and the other manufacturer were visually different in design, wording, shape, and accompanying device. The expression "Parkman" was shown to be used by more than one manufacturer with prefixes or suffixes, indicating that it was not established as the exclusive property of any one unit. The burden was on the department to prove exclusive ownership by the other concern, and no such evidence was produced. The Board's circular clarifying that a common brand name not owned by a particular person would not disentitle an assessee from the exemption was found applicable. The subsequent registration of the brand name in the assessee's favour also supported the conclusion that the mark was not shown to be exclusively owned by the other unit.

Conclusion: The assessee was not hit by Paragraph 4 of Notification No. 1/93-C.E., and the denial of SSI exemption was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand based on alleged use of another's brand name was set aside, and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a brand name is not proved to be exclusively owned by another person and is shown to be in common use in the public domain, mere use of that mark with variations does not justify denial of small-scale exemption.

---