https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110192 Small scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE could not be denied merely because the goods bore the brand name "SUMER" where the record did not establish that another person owned the brand during the relevant period. Long and uninterrupted use of the mark by the assessee, its own registration efforts, the absence of effective objection from the alleged owner, and the assignment or relinquishment deed supported the conclusion that the brand name was not shown to belong to another person. On that basis, the bar against use of another person's brand name did not apply, and denial of the exemption was unjustified. en-us Fri, 31 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Apr 2012 11:32:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110192 Small scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93-CE could not be denied merely because the goods bore the brand name "SUMER" where the record did not establish that another person owned the brand during the relevant period. Long and uninterrupted use of the mark by the assessee, its own registration efforts, the absence of effective objection from the alleged owner, and the assignment or relinquishment deed supported the conclusion that the brand name was not shown to belong to another person. On that basis, the bar against use of another person's brand name did not apply, and denial of the exemption was unjustified. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 31 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110192