Small scale exemption remains available where rival brand names are used only to indicate product suitability, not proprietary adoption.

Small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was not lost merely because the products and packaging referred to other manufacturers' names. The goods prominently bore the appellants' own brand name, and the references to Kirloskar and Escorts were used only to show suitability for particular engine makes or models, not as adoption of another's trade mark or trade name in a proprietary sense. On that basis, the bar on exemption for use of another manufacturer's brand name did not apply, and denial of the small scale exemption was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were disentitled to small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. dated 01.03.1986 on the ground that their products carried the brand names or trade names of other manufacturers.

Analysis: The goods and their packaging prominently carried the appellant's own brand name. References to names such as Kirloskar and Escorts appeared only to indicate that the goods were suitable for use with particular makes or models of engines, and not as adoption of those manufacturers' brand names in a stylised or proprietary sense. The price list and sample packaging supported the position that the other names were used only for identification of suitability of the product.

Conclusion: The appellants were not using the brand name of another manufacturer as such, and the bar to exemption did not apply. The denial of small scale exemption was unsustainable.

---