https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110977 Use of a common brand name does not by itself bar small-scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. The assessee's labels were visually distinct, and the record did not establish that "PARKMAN-T" was exclusively owned by another manufacturer. The department failed to discharge the burden of proving exclusive ownership, while the Board's circular on common brand names supported exemption where the mark is not owned by a particular person. Subsequent registration of the brand in the assessee's favour further indicated that exclusive ownership by the other unit was not shown. The denial of SSI exemption was therefore unsustainable. en-us Thu, 04 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Apr 2012 14:32:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110977 Use of a common brand name does not by itself bar small-scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. The assessee's labels were visually distinct, and the record did not establish that "PARKMAN-T" was exclusively owned by another manufacturer. The department failed to discharge the burden of proving exclusive ownership, while the Board's circular on common brand names supported exemption where the mark is not owned by a particular person. Subsequent registration of the brand in the assessee's favour further indicated that exclusive ownership by the other unit was not shown. The denial of SSI exemption was therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 04 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=110977