Small Scale Industry exemption on brand name use denied only for another person's mark, not shared use of TRANSPADE.

Small Scale Industry exemption was available because the goods cleared under the mark TRANSPADE were not shown to bear a brand name belonging to another person. The notification barred the benefit only where the specified goods carried another person's brand or trade name, and the record did not establish exclusive third-party ownership of TRANSPADE. The mark was used by the appellant and also by the proprietorship concern of the appellant's Managing Director, which undermined the Revenue's case that the appellant had adopted someone else's brand name. On that basis, denial of the exemption was found unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to Small Scale Industry exemption when the goods were cleared under the mark TRANSPADE, and whether that mark could be treated as a brand name belonging to another person so as to deny the exemption.

Analysis: The exemption notification denied benefit where the specified goods bore a brand name or trade name of another person. The dispute turned on ownership and use of the mark TRANSPADE. The mark was used by the appellant and also by the proprietorship concern of the appellant's Managing Director. On the facts, the mark was not shown to be exclusively owned by a third person, and the record did not establish that the appellant had adopted a brand name belonging to another so as to attract the bar in the notification. Following the reasoning in earlier decisions on similar facts, the Tribunal held that the Revenue had not made out a case for denial of the exemption.

Conclusion: The denial of Small Scale Industry exemption was unsustainable, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the notification.

---