Brand name exemption requires proof of ownership by another person; use on different goods alone does not deny the benefit.

Denial of small-scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. depended on proof that the brand name belonged to another identifiable person; a mere assertion that goods bore a brand name was insufficient, and the department had to establish ownership. The Board circular stated that exemption could not be refused unless such ownership was proved. Use of the same mark on different, non-identical goods cleared by separate units did not by itself amount to use of another person's brand name on the goods in question. On that reasoning, denial of the exemption was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. could be denied on the ground that the brand name "Amba" belonged to another person and the burden to prove such ownership lay on the department; (ii) whether use of the same brand name on different, non-identical goods cleared by separate units amounted to use of another person's brand name so as to deny the small-scale exemption.

Issue (i): Whether exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. could be denied on the ground that the brand name "Amba" belonged to another person and the burden to prove such ownership lay on the department.

Analysis: For denial of the exemption, the decisive fact was proof that the brand belonged to a particular person. A mere declaration that goods bear a brand name did not establish ownership in favour of any appellant. Where the appellants denied ownership and asserted that the brand did not belong to anyone exclusively, the department had to establish who owned the brand. The Board's Circular No. 52/52/94-CX clarified that, unless ownership by a particular person was proved, the exemption could not be denied.

Conclusion: The exemption could not be denied on the basis adopted by the lower authorities, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether use of the same brand name on different, non-identical goods cleared by separate units amounted to use of another person's brand name so as to deny the small-scale exemption.

Analysis: The goods cleared by one unit were different from those cleared by another, and the brand was not affixed to the same goods. Excise liability and exemption were to be determined on each distinct excisable commodity. Interrelationship between products did not justify treating use of the brand on different goods as use of another person's brand on the same goods. The products were also found to be different and not even functionally similar.

Conclusion: The use of the brand name on different goods did not disentitle the appellants from the exemption, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The denial of small-scale exemption was unsustainable, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Denial of small-scale exemption for use of a brand name requires proof that the brand is owned by another identifiable person, and use of the same mark on different distinct goods does not by itself amount to use of another person's brand name on the goods in question.

---