Brand name use by another person defeats small scale exemption even when registration covers different goods.

Use of another person's brand name disentitles a manufacturer to small scale exemption under Notification No. 8/99, even where the brand name is registered for different goods. The controlling principle, as reflected in the authorities relied upon, is that eligibility depends on whether the assessee clears goods under a trade name belonging to someone else, not on identity between the branded goods and the goods covered by the registration. On that basis, the denial of exemption was held valid in law and the relief earlier granted was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the small scale exemption notification when the goods were cleared under a brand name registered in the name of another concern, though the registration covered different goods.

Analysis: The applicable exemption was Notification No. 8/99. The controlling principle, as affirmed by the Supreme Court authorities relied upon, is that the decisive factor is use of another person's trade name or brand name, and not whether the branded goods are identical to the goods for which the trade name is registered. If the assessee uses a brand name belonging to someone else, the exemption is unavailable even where the registration relates to different goods.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the exemption; the denial of the benefit was /valid in law and the Revenue's appeal succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order granting relief was set aside and the Revenue's challenge was accepted on the settled principle that use of another person's brand name disentitles the manufacturer to small scale exemption.

Ratio Decidendi: For small scale exemption, use of a brand name or trade name belonging to another person disentitles the assessee, even if the registration of that brand name is in respect of different goods.

---