Small scale exemption denied for goods using another person's brand name; strict notification interpretation applied.

Specified goods bearing another person's brand name were held outside the small scale industry exemption, because the relevant notifications denied relief where the goods carried a brand name or trade name of another person. The goods prominently displayed the mark "KUMAR", which was registered in the name of another concern, and the exemption was lost on that basis. The interpretation followed Supreme Court authority that the bar applies once another person's brand name is used on the goods, even if the mark is registered for the same goods. The demand was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether goods cleared under the small scale exemption were ineligible for exemption because they bore the brand name of another person.

Analysis: The goods prominently carried the brand name "KUMAR", which was registered in the name of another concern. The exemption notifications governing the relevant period denied benefit to specified goods bearing the brand name or trade name of another person. The same condition had been interpreted by the Supreme Court to mean that the exemption is lost when the specified goods bear another person's brand name, regardless of whether the brand is registered for the same goods. That interpretation applied squarely to the facts found in the present matters.

Conclusion: The goods were not eligible for the small scale industry exemption and the demand was rightly confirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification excluding specified goods bearing the brand name or trade name of another person must be strictly construed, and the exemption is unavailable once such brand name is used on the goods, irrespective of whether the mark is registered for the same goods.

---