Small scale industry exemption turns on brand-name use in trade, not mere logo printing or marketing references on cartons.

Mere appearance of another company's logo, name or a statement that it marketed the goods on cartons did not by itself establish use of that company's brand name for purposes of denying small scale industry exemption under Notification No. 1/93. The Tribunal noted that the cartons bore the assessee's product names, and there was no evidence that the other company's mark identified the goods in trade or that it manufactured similar products under the assessee's brand. On that basis, the exemption remained available and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the small scale industry exemption under Notification No. 1/93 despite the presence of another company's logo and the indication that the products were marketed by that company on the cartons.

Analysis: The product cartons showed Triben, Triben-B and Triben Plus as the brand names, while the logo of Jenburkt and the description that the products were marketed by Jenburkt also appeared. On examination of the packing, the Tribunal found that such printing did not establish that the goods were identified under Jenburkt's brand name. No evidence was produced to show that Jenburkt manufactured the same or any other product in the assessee's brand name. The Tribunal applied the Bombay High Court's principle that mere printing of another company's name or logo on cartons, by itself, does not establish use of that company's brand name for denial of exemption.

Conclusion: The assessee remained entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1/93, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere appearance of another company's logo or the statement that it markets the goods does not, without evidence of brand-name identification in trade, amount to use of that company's brand name so as to deny small scale industry exemption.

---