Brand name ownership dispute required fresh reconsideration of small scale industry exemption on merits.

Small scale industry exemption was denied on the basis that the assessee used another's brand name, but the later determination of trade mark ownership changed the factual and legal foundation of that denial. The matter therefore required fresh examination by the adjudicating authority in light of the Supreme Court's subsequent ownership finding. The authority was directed to give notice, afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and pass a speaking order on the exemption claim. The exemption issue was remitted for reconsideration on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the denial of small scale industry exemption on the ground of use of another's brand name could be sustained in view of the subsequent determination of trade mark ownership, and whether the matter required fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The exemption dispute turned on the ownership and use of the trade mark. The order noted that the Supreme Court had subsequently settled the question of ownership of the brand name, and that the earlier adjudication had been passed much before that determination. In these circumstances, the factual and legal basis for the exemption denial required re-examination by the adjudicating authority afresh, after giving the appellant notice and a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and by passing a speaking order.

Conclusion: The issue was remitted for fresh decision, and the exemption question was left to be reconsidered on merits by the adjudicating authority.

---