Small scale exemption and brand name ownership: denial fails unless the Revenue proves third-party ownership of the mark.

Small scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. could be denied for use of a brand name only if the goods bore a brand name belonging to another person. The Revenue had to prove with evidence that the mark was owned by a third party and was being used as that person's brand name. As no material established such ownership, the bar in paragraph 4 did not apply, and the demand and penalties based on that assumption could not stand. The appeals therefore succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of small scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was unavailable on the ground that the goods bore a brand name belonging to another person.

Analysis: The exemption under paragraph 4 of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. is denied only when the specified goods bear a brand name or trade name and that brand name belongs to another person. The Revenue was required to establish by evidence that the mark in question belonged to the third party and that the appellants were using it as another person's brand name. No material was brought on record to prove such ownership, and the demand and penalties rested on that unproved assumption. In the absence of evidence showing that the mark belonged to another person, the bar in paragraph 4 did not apply.

Conclusion: The denial of small scale exemption was unsustainable and the appeals succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption under the relevant small scale notification cannot be denied on the ground of use of a brand name of another person unless the Revenue proves, with evidence, that the brand name belongs to that other person.

---