https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105134 Use of the word "CYCLO" on goods, by itself, did not amount to use of another person's brand name where the mark was applied only to identify the assessee's products and distinguish them from similar goods of other manufacturers. In the absence of evidence that the goods were marketed as those of, or on behalf of, the other concern, the mark was treated as an identification device rather than branding. The distinction between a mere identifying mark and a brand name preserved eligibility for small scale industry exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., and the differential duty demand was therefore not sustainable. en-us Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Mar 2012 19:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105134 Use of the word "CYCLO" on goods, by itself, did not amount to use of another person's brand name where the mark was applied only to identify the assessee's products and distinguish them from similar goods of other manufacturers. In the absence of evidence that the goods were marketed as those of, or on behalf of, the other concern, the mark was treated as an identification device rather than branding. The distinction between a mere identifying mark and a brand name preserved eligibility for small scale industry exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E., and the differential duty demand was therefore not sustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105134