Small scale industry exemption survives where assigned brand names are owned by the manufacturer and a house mark is not treated as another's brand name.

Small scale industry exemption cannot be denied merely because a product carton bears a house mark or the name of a marketing company, where the brand names have been assigned to the manufacturer. Assignment deeds for FERICH-SR and ZIFF-SR showed ownership in the respondents' favour, and the objection regarding DOXYREK-DR failed because a house mark is not equivalent to another's brand name for exemption denial. The materials on record supported the respondents as brand owners, so the Revenue's ground for exclusion from exemption did not survive and the denial of exemption was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were entitled to small scale industry exemption when the department alleged use of another's brand name, house mark, or marketing company's name on the products.

Analysis: The respondents produced assignment deeds showing that the brand names FERICH-SR and ZIFF-SR had been assigned to them. The objection regarding DOXYREK-DR rested only on the presence of a house mark on the carton, but a house mark is not the same as a brand name for denial of exemption. The presence of the marketing company's name on the carton of ZIFF-SR was also held not to defeat the exemption. In the light of the materials on record and the cited decisions, the respondents were treated as owners of the brand names and the Revenue's basis for denying the exemption did not survive.

Conclusion: The denial of small scale industry exemption was unsustainable and the Revenue's appeals failed.

---