Small-scale exemption cannot be denied where trade marks differ in overall commercial impression despite a shared common element.

Exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. could not be denied merely because the appellants' mark shared the letters "AGI" with another concern's mark. The marks were materially different in colour scheme, geometric design, overall presentation, and commercial impression, and the appellants' mark also included the word "Switches". The brand-name bar in the notification was not attracted because the show cause notice did not allege that the other concern was ineligible for the exemption. The denial of small-scale exemption on brand-name grounds was therefore not sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were disentitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. on the ground that their products bore the brand name of another person.

Analysis: The trade marks used by the appellants and the other concern were found to be materially different in colour scheme, geometric design, and overall presentation. The mere presence of the letters "AGI" within an oval shape did not make the marks identical. The appellants' mark also contained the additional word "Switches". It was further noted that the show cause notice did not allege that the other person was ineligible for the exemption, which was necessary to invoke the brand-name restriction in the notification.

Conclusion: The benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. could not be denied to the appellants; the finding against them on brand-name eligibility was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption under a small-scale notification cannot be denied merely because two marks share a common element if their overall commercial impressions are different, and the notification's brand-name bar is not attracted without a proper allegation that the other person is ineligible for the exemption.

---