Small scale industry exemption and registered brand name use: penalty enhancement rejected absent proof of knowledge or intention.

Penalty enhancement was rejected where goods were manufactured under another person's registered brand name while claiming small scale industry exemption, because there was no evidence that the respondent knew the brand belonged to someone else or deliberately claimed the exemption despite such knowledge. The Commissioner (Appeals) had relied on Tribunal decisions taking a similar view, and in the absence of proof of knowledge or intention, interference with the reduced penalty was not justified. The order reducing the penalty was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed on the respondent was liable to be enhanced or restored on the ground that the goods were manufactured under another person's registered brand name while claiming small scale industry exemption.

Analysis: The use of the brand name by another person was not in dispute, but no evidence was produced to show that the respondent knew that the brand name belonged to someone else or that it deliberately claimed the exemption despite such knowledge. The Commissioner (Appeals) had also relied on Tribunal decisions extending exemption in similar circumstances. In the absence of proof of knowledge or intention, interference with the reduced penalty was not justified.

Conclusion: The request for enhancement of penalty was rejected and the order reducing the penalty was upheld.

---