Small scale exemption cannot be denied for alleged third-party brand use unless ownership is proved by cogent evidence.

Small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. could not be denied merely because the goods bore the brand name "Kalinga". The Revenue failed to prove, by cogent evidence such as a statement or registration certificate, that the brand belonged to another person; a classification list alone was insufficient to establish third-party ownership. On that basis, use of the mark could not be treated as use of another's brand name so as to disentitle the exemption. The duty demand, confiscation, fine and penalty were therefore set aside, and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. could be denied on the footing that the appellant used the brand name "Kalinga" belonging to another person and, on that basis, the duty demand, confiscation and penalties were sustainable.

Analysis: The Revenue proceeded on the assumption that the brand name "Kalinga" belonged to R.K. Electricals and relied mainly on classification lists showing that concern clearing goods under that brand. No statement from the appellant, from R.K. Electricals, or any registration certificate was produced to establish ownership of the brand name. Mere presence of the brand name on another manufacturer's classification list did not prove that the brand was owned by that concern. In the absence of reliable evidence of third-party ownership, the appellant's use of the expression "Kalinga" could not be treated as use of another person's brand name so as to disentitle the exemption.

Conclusion: The denial of the small scale exemption was unjustified. The duty demand, confiscation, fine and penalty were set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption under the small scale notification cannot be denied on the basis of alleged use of another's brand name unless ownership of that brand name is proved by cogent evidence.

---