Small scale exemption survives where technical assistance marking is not treated as use of another company's brand name.

Use of a supplier's name in small print as a statement of technical assistance did not amount to use of another company's brand name, because the respondents marketed the product under their own brand and the named entity was only an ingredient supplier. On that basis, the brand-name condition for denial of small scale exemption was not attracted, and the lower appellate authority's finding was upheld. The respondents remained entitled to the small scale exemption, and the departmental appeal was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were disentitled to small scale exemption on the ground that they used the brand name of another company on the product.

Analysis: The respondents used their own brand name on the product and only printed in small letters that the product was made with technical assistance of another entity. The marking did not amount to use of the foreign supplier's brand name, since that entity was only the supplier of an ingredient and not the owner of the product brand. The finding of the lower appellate authority that the brand name condition for denial of small scale exemption was not attracted was upheld.

Conclusion: The respondents were entitled to the small scale exemption and the department's appeal was rejected.

---