Small scale exemption cannot be denied unless the record proves use of another person's brand name on the goods.

A small scale manufacturer is not disentitled to exemption unless the record establishes that it used another person's brand name on its goods. Here, the proceedings alleged that washing machines were cleared under the brand name "Pride" belonging to Racold, but the record showed that the adjudication authority had found otherwise and the appellate view rested only on Racold's marketing role. The name plate described Racold as the servicing agency, and the materials did not prove use of another person's brand name. The denial of small scale exemption was therefore unjustified, and the order-in-appeal was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was rightly denied the benefit of small scale exemption on the ground that the washing machines were cleared under the brand name of another person.

Analysis: The basis of the proceedings was that the goods were cleared under the brand name "Pride" and that the brand name belonged to Racold. The records, however, showed that the adjudication authority had found otherwise, and the appellate order rested only on the view that Racold had a role in marketing the washing machines. The name plate also indicated that Racold was only the servicing agency, and the materials on record did not establish that the appellant was using the brand name of another person so as to disentitle it from the small scale exemption.

Conclusion: The denial of small scale exemption was unjustified and the appellant succeeded on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The order-in-appeal was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A small scale manufacturer cannot be denied exemption unless the record establishes that it used the brand name of another person on its goods.

---