Brand name exemption under small scale industry notification failed where the brand owner's own eligibility for the relevant period was not shown.

Exemption for small scale industries under Notification No. 175/86 was available despite use of another person's brand name only if the brand owner was himself entitled to the exemption during the relevant period. The condition was not satisfied here because entitlement of the brand owner for that period was not shown, and later registration or exemption on other goods did not establish earlier eligibility. The appellant therefore could not claim the notification benefit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 granting exemption to small scale industries despite using the brand name of another person.

Analysis: The exemption notification permitted use of another's brand name only where the other person was himself entitled to the exemption. The appellant's brand owner was not shown to have been entitled to the benefit during the relevant period, and the Court declined to assume that mere exemption from excise duty on other goods or later registration as a small scale industry established entitlement for the earlier period. The condition in the notification was therefore not satisfied.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 175/86.

---