Brand name exemption for small scale units upheld where third-party ownership was not independently proved.

Exemption under Notification No. 1/93 for small scale units depended on whether the excisable goods bore the brand name or trade name of another person. The distributorship agreement, including the clause providing for transfer of the mark on termination, was treated as indicating that the mark was being regarded as the appellant's own. The appellant's declaration under Rule 173B and application for registration in its own name supported that position, while the department produced no independent evidence to prove third-party ownership. The brand name was therefore not established to belong to another person, and the exemption remained available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the excisable goods manufactured by the appellant bore the brand name of another person so as to disentitle the appellant from the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 dated 28-2-1993.

Analysis: The exemption was unavailable only if the goods manufactured by the small scale unit bore the brand name or trade name of any other person. The department relied on the distributorship agreement to contend that the brand name belonged to the distributor, but the agreement, including the clause requiring transfer of the mark upon termination, showed that the mark was being treated as the appellant's own. The appellant had also consistently claimed ownership, referred to its declaration filed under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, and pointed to its application for registration of the mark in its own name. The department produced no independent evidence to rebut this claim or to establish that the brand name belonged to someone else.

Conclusion: The brand name did not stand proved to be that of another person, and the appellant remained entitled to the exemption.

---