Small scale industry exemption turns on proof of exclusive brand ownership, which the Revenue failed to establish.

Small scale industry exemption could not be denied merely because the assessee used the names "Nova" and "Leader"; the Revenue had to prove with reliable material that those names were the exclusive brand names of another person. Because the Revenue did not conduct further inquiry to rebut the assessee's claim that the names were also used by other manufacturers, and produced no statutory registration or comparable proof of exclusive ownership in favour of Noble Engineering Works, the use of a brand name belonging to another person was not established. The exemption was therefore available and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the small scale industry exemption despite use of the brand names "Nova" and "Leader", and whether the Revenue proved that those brand names belonged to another person.

Analysis: The entitlement to the exemption turned on whether the Revenue established, on the basis of reliable material, that the impugned brand names were the exclusive brand names of Noble Engineering Works. The assessee's case was that the same names were also used by other manufacturers, and the Revenue did not conduct inquiry to rebut that contention. Although statements referred to use of the names by Noble Engineering Works, there was no statutory registration certificate or comparable proof showing exclusive ownership of the brand names in favour of that concern. In the absence of such evidence, it could not be presumed that the assessee had used a brand name belonging to another person.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the exemption and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---