Brand name ownership is essential to deny small-scale exemption; unowned marks do not defeat the exemption.

Small-scale exemption could not be denied unless Revenue proved that the mark used on the goods belonged to another identifiable person and indicated a trade connection with that person. The record did not establish that the plain alphabet mark or the design on the assessee's goods was owned by VKPL, and the circular clarified that use of a brand name not belonging to any person does not disqualify exemption. In the absence of proof of third-party ownership of the mark, the exemption remained available and the connected demand, confiscation, fine, and penalties could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the goods manufactured by the assessee were ineligible for small-scale exemption on the ground that they bore the brand name of another person, and whether the consequent demand, confiscation, and penalties could be sustained.

Analysis: The Revenue was required to establish that the mark used on the goods belonged to another identifiable person and indicated a trade connection with that person. The record did not show that the alphabet 'K' in the form used by the assessee was owned by VKPL or that the peculiar design and style embossed on VKPL's pumps had been adopted by the assessee. The mark was found to be a plain alphabet capable of use by any person, and the governing circular clarified that where a brand name does not belong to any person, its use does not take the goods outside the small-scale exemption. In the absence of proof of ownership of the mark by another person, the exemption could not be denied and the connected confiscation and penalties could not survive.

Conclusion: The denial of small-scale exemption was unsustainable; the demand, confiscation, fine, and penalties were set aside, and the assessee succeeded.

---