Brand name exemption under Notification 175/86 applies where the brand owner is itself eligible for small-scale industry benefit.

A manufacturer of detergent powder and cake using another concern's brand name remained eligible for exemption under Notification No. 175/86 because the exclusion in paragraph 7 applies only when the brand owner is not eligible for the exemption. The brand-owning concern was itself a small-scale industrial unit already held eligible under the notification, so the mere use of its brand name did not trigger disqualification. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable and the assessee was entitled to the benefit.

---

---

Issues: Whether an assessee manufacturing detergent powder and cake under a brand name belonging to another concern was disentitled to the exemption under Notification No. 175/86, when the other concern itself was a small-scale industrial unit eligible for the same exemption.

Analysis: Paragraph 7 of the notification denies exemption where the specified goods bear the brand name or trade name of another person who is not eligible for the exemption. The disqualification is triggered only if the other person is ineligible under the notification. Here, the brand owner was itself a small-scale industrial unit and had already been held eligible for exemption. Once that factual and legal position was accepted, the mere use of its brand name could not attract the exclusion clause.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 175/86 and the denial of benefit was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: The bar against use of another person's brand name applies only when that other person is not eligible for the exemption under the notification.

---