House mark does not defeat SSI exemption when it merely identifies the manufacturer and is not another's brand name.

SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93 is not denied merely because an assessee uses a house mark. The elephant device had been used as a logo by the earlier partnership, there was no proof that it was a registered trademark of another person, and the marks used by the two concerns were not identical. The goods were sold under separate product names rather than under the elephant mark, so the device functioned only as a house mark identifying the manufacturer and not as a brand name identifying the goods in trade. On those facts, the assessee remained entitled to SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93 read with Notification No. 8/98.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was correctly denied small scale industry exemption on the ground that the elephant logo and the mark used by it constituted the brand name or trade name of another concern.

Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 1/93 was available only where the specified goods did not bear the brand name or trade name of another person. The evidence showed that the elephant device had been used as a logo by the erstwhile partnership and there was no proof that it was a registered trademark owned by any other person. The marks used by the two concerns were also not identical, and the products were sold under separate product names rather than under the elephant mark. On these facts, the elephant device operated only as a house mark identifying the manufacturer and not as a brand name identifying the goods in trade.

Conclusion: The denial of SSI exemption was unsustainable and the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 read with Notification No. 8/98.

Ratio Decidendi: A house mark that merely identifies the manufacturer, and is not shown to be the brand name or trade name of another person, does not disqualify an assessee from SSI exemption under the notification.

---