Brand name exemption under small scale notification fails when another person's mark appears on cartons and eligibility is unproven.

Notification No. 175/86 was interpreted to bar small scale exemption where specified goods bear another person's brand name or trade name, even if the mark appears on cartons or packing material rather than directly on the finished goods. The relevant test is whether the brand name identifies the goods with its owner; direct affixation on the goods is not always required where the nature of the goods makes that impracticable. As the record did not show that the brand name owner was eligible for the exemption, the benefit was unavailable on the facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether paragraph 7 of Notification No. 175/86 was inapplicable merely because the brand name of another person was affixed on the cartons or packing material and not directly on the finished goods, and whether the appellants were entitled to the small scale exemption without showing that the brand name owner was eligible for that exemption.

Analysis: Paragraph 7 barred the exemption where a manufacturer affixed the specified goods with the brand name or trade name of another person not eligible for the benefit. The expression was not confined to direct marking on the finished goods in every case. A brand name serves to identify the product with its owner, and where the nature of the goods makes direct affixation impracticable, the required identification may be achieved through the packing material. The record also did not establish that the brand name owner was eligible for the exemption. The exemption notification was therefore attracted on the facts.

Conclusion: The objection based on affixation only on cartons failed, and the appellants were not entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 175/86.

---