Small Scale Industry exemption preserved where a registered company name was used and no competing brand ownership was proved.

Use of a registered company name on excisable goods did not by itself disentitle the manufacturer to Small Scale Industry exemption. The department had to prove that the mark was another person's brand or trade name and that its use created a trade connection in purchasers' minds; mere coincidence with part of another mark was insufficient. On the facts, that burden was not discharged, so the exemption remained available. Because the demand rested on the same allegation, the extended period and penalty also could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was disentitled to Small Scale Industry exemption on the ground that it affixed the name "A.J. Bantex" on its goods, and whether the demand, extended period, and penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: The company name "A.J. Bantex Pvt. Ltd." was registered and there was no evidence that its incorporation or use had been challenged. The mere presence of the word "Bantex", by itself, was not sufficient to establish that the goods bore the brand name or trade name of another person. The burden lay on the department to prove that the mark belonged to the foreign company and that the use created a trade connection in the minds of purchasers. On the facts, that burden was not discharged. The extended period and penalty, which rested on the same allegation, could not survive once the exemption issue failed.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the Small Scale Industry exemption and the demand and penalty were unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A manufacturer using its own registered company name on goods is not denied Small Scale Industry exemption merely because part of that name coincides with another person's mark, unless the revenue proves that the mark is in the nature of another's brand or trade name and not merely the assessee's own house mark.

---