Brand name exclusion under small-scale exemption fails where 'JK' is not proved to be exclusively owned by another person.

Notification No. 1/93 denied small-scale exemption only where the specified goods bore the brand name or trade name of another person. The key question was whether the mark "JK" belonged exclusively to J.K. Brothers; on the stated facts, it was not shown to be registered and there was no reliable evidence of exclusive legal ownership. A brand name not exclusively owned and used by more than one manufacturer remains in the public domain, so the exclusion does not apply. The departmental circular was consistent with this view, and the exemption could not be denied merely because the goods bore the mark "JK".

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was disentitled to the exemption under Notification No. 1/93 on the ground that the goods bore the brand name "JK" of another person.

Analysis: The notification denied the benefit only where the specified goods bore the brand name or trade name of another person. The decisive question was not mere use in the abstract, but whether the brand name belonged exclusively to J.K. Brothers so as to attract the exclusion. On the facts, the brand name was not shown to be registered, and there was no reliable evidence establishing legal ownership in J.K. Brothers. If the name was not exclusively owned, it remained in the public domain and could be used by others. The departmental circular also recognised that where a brand name did not belong to anyone exclusively and was used by more than one manufacturer, the exclusion did not apply.

Conclusion: The exemption could not be denied on the ground that the goods bore the brand name "JK", and the departmental appeal failed.

---