Brand name exemption under small scale industry notification survived where ownership by another person was not proved.

Small scale industry exemption under Notification No. 1/1993-C.E. was available where the Revenue failed to prove that the goods bore a brand name belonging to another person. The evidence did not establish ownership of the brand names by the customer companies; the Managing Director's statement was not treated as an admission of such ownership, and the customers' affidavits expressly disowned it. As denial of the exemption depended on proof that the brand name belonged to another person, the cited precedents were found inapplicable on the facts. The respondents therefore remained entitled to the exemption and the Revenue appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were disentitled to small scale industry exemption under para 4 of Notification No. 1/1993-C.E. dated 28.02.1993 on the ground that the goods bore the brand name of another person.

Analysis: The evidence did not establish that the brand names affixed on the welding electrodes belonged to the customer companies. The statement of the Managing Director did not amount to an admission that the brand names were owned by the customers, and the affidavits filed by the customers themselves disowned ownership. The Revenue did not successfully challenge the finding that the brand names were not owned by another person. Since denial of the exemption required proof that the brand name belonged to another person, the precedents relied upon by the Revenue were held to be inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The respondents were not barred from claiming the exemption, and the Revenue appeal failed.

---