https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97231 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. en-us Tue, 21 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:21:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97231 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 21 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97231