Use of another's registered brand name can defeat small scale exemption and sustain duty demand.

Use of a brand name registered in another person's name disentitles an assessee from small scale exemption under Notification No. 8/01-CE, even where the goods are otherwise within the relevant tariff chapter. The surrounding facts may also support an inference that the assessee knowingly adopted that brand name, so a defence based on absence of mala fide intention can fail on the evidence. Reliance on authorities dealing with remote-area use or use of one's own name will not assist where the facts show use of another's registered brand. The appeal was therefore rejected and the duty demand and related consequences were sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to small scale exemption under Notification No. 8/01-CE while using a brand name registered in the name of another person, and whether the demand was unsustainable for want of mala fide intention.

Analysis: The goods manufactured by the appellant fell under Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and were cleared under the brand name "Prince", which was registered in the name of another entity. The use of a brand name owned by another person disentitled the appellant from the benefit of the small scale exemption notification. The surrounding circumstances, including the nature of the goods and the appellant's business in the same line, supported the inference that the appellant was aware of the ownership of the brand name and had intentionally used it. The reliance placed on decisions dealing with remote-area use or use of one's own name was found inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to the small scale exemption, and the challenge to the demand on the ground of absence of intention failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was rejected and the adjudication confirming duty and related consequences was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Use of a brand name registered in the name of another person disentitles an assessee from small scale exemption, and intention to use such brand name may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances of the case.

---