Small scale exemption and limitation turn on trade mark registration and absence of suppression in duty demand disputes.

Trade mark registration in the assessee's own name under Section 23 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 was treated as relating back to the application date, so clearances from 6-10-1997 were regarded as made under its own brand name and the small scale exemption under Notification No. 88/88-C.E. was available from that date. For the earlier period, the absence of material showing suppression or intent to evade duty meant the extended limitation period could not be invoked. The duty demand was therefore unsustainable on merits for the later period and time-barred for June to October 1997.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to small scale exemption on the footing that the trade mark was registered in its own name with effect from 6-10-1997. (ii) Whether the demand for the period June to October 1997 was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to small scale exemption on the footing that the trade mark was registered in its own name with effect from 6-10-1997.

Analysis: The certificate of registration issued under Section 23 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 showed the trade mark as registered in the assessee's name from 6-10-1997. Under that provision, registration relates back to the date of the application. Once the mark stood registered in the assessee's name from that date, the clearances were under its own brand name and the condition for denial of the small scale exemption was not attracted.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 88/88-C.E. for the period from 6-10-1997 onwards.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand for the period June to October 1997 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: For the earlier period, the dispute turned on whether use of the same trade mark on different goods could sustain an allegation of suppression or intent to evade duty. In view of the settled position on the nature of trade marks and the absence of material showing deliberate evasion, the extended period could not be invoked against the assessee.

Conclusion: The demand for June to October 1997 was time-barred and was liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand did not survive either on merits from 6-10-1997 onwards or on limitation for the earlier period, and the Revenue's appeals failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A trade mark registered in the assessee's name under Section 23 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 relates back to the date of application, and where the facts do not establish suppression with intent to evade duty, the extended period of limitation cannot be applied.

---