Prima facie trade mark affixation issue supported unconditional stay of recovery under the small-scale exemption notification.

Para 7 of Notification No. 175/86 was read prima facie to apply only where the small-scale manufacturer itself affixes the relevant trade mark. Because the brand name 'Usha' was not shown to have been affixed by the applicants, and their contention that the mark was already present on castings purchased from the market had not been addressed by the lower authorities, the Tribunal found a strong prima facie case for interim protection. On that basis, unconditional stay of recovery was granted pending further proceedings.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for purposes of interim relief, the applicants had made out a prima facie case for waiver of predeposit and stay of recovery where the goods bore the brand name of another concern and the brand name had allegedly not been affixed by the manufacturer.

Analysis: Para 7 of Notification No. 175/86 was construed as applying prima facie only when the small scale manufacturer availing the notification affixes the relevant trade mark. On the facts, the brand name 'Usha' had not been affixed by the applicants themselves, and their plea that the mark was already present on the castings purchased from the market had not been dealt with by the lower authorities. In these circumstances, the Tribunal found that the applicants had a strong prima facie case for interim protection.

Conclusion: Stay of recovery was granted unconditionally and the applicants succeeded on the interim relief sought.

---