Small-scale exemption and brand-name use: exemption cannot be denied without proof that the mark belongs to another person.

Small-scale exemption could not be denied merely because pumps bore brand names; the exemption was available unless the Revenue proved that the assessee used a brand name belonging to another person and that the mark indicated a trade connection with that person. The adjudication record did not establish ownership of the disputed brand names by any specific person, so the required factual foundation was missing. A Board circular was also relied on for the view that floating brand names not owned by any identified person do not forfeit the exemption. The denial of small-scale exemption was therefore unsustainable and the assessee succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was disentitled to small-scale exemption on the ground that the pumps were affixed with brand names said to belong to other persons.

Analysis: The entitlement to deny the exemption depended on proving that the assessee was using a brand name belonging to another person and that such brand name indicated a trade connection with that person. The finding recorded in the adjudication order did not establish ownership of the disputed brand names by any specific person. The Revenue therefore failed to discharge the burden of showing that the brand names were e to the assessee in the sense required by the exemption notification. The Board's circular was also relied upon as recognizing that floating brand names not owned by any particular person could be used without losing the benefit of the exemption.

Conclusion: The denial of small-scale exemption was unsustainable and the issue is decided in favour of the assessee.

---