Trade mark exemption under Notification No. 1/93 preserved where brand names were only similar and goods differed.

The exemption bar under Notification No. 1/93 applied only when the assessee used the same trade mark or brand name as another trader for the specified goods. Because the assessee's brand indicia were only similar or deceptively similar, not the same, and the goods were different in common parlance, the disqualification did not operate. The clarification that the same trade mark may exist for different classes of goods supported this construction. The assessee was therefore entitled to the exemption.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 1/93 where the brand indicia used by it were said to be similar to those of another trader and the goods marketed by the two concerns were different.

Analysis: The relevant expression in the notification was construed on its plain language. The disqualification applied only where the assessee used the same trade mark or brand name as another trader in relation to the specified goods. The marks used by the assessee were not the same as those of the other concern; at best, they were similar or deceptively similar. The goods were also not the same in common parlance, one being raw betelnut in chipped form and the other being scented supari. The Board's clarification that the same trade mark could exist for different classes of goods supported this view.

Conclusion: The bar in the notification was not attracted and the assessee was entitled to the exemption.

---