https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111756 Denial of small-scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. depended on proof that the brand name belonged to another identifiable person; a mere assertion that goods bore a brand name was insufficient, and the department had to establish ownership. The Board circular stated that exemption could not be refused unless such ownership was proved. Use of the same mark on different, non-identical goods cleared by separate units did not by itself amount to use of another person's brand name on the goods in question. On that reasoning, denial of the exemption was unsustainable. en-us Fri, 07 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 25 Apr 2012 11:28:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111756 Denial of small-scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. depended on proof that the brand name belonged to another identifiable person; a mere assertion that goods bore a brand name was insufficient, and the department had to establish ownership. The Board circular stated that exemption could not be refused unless such ownership was proved. Use of the same mark on different, non-identical goods cleared by separate units did not by itself amount to use of another person's brand name on the goods in question. On that reasoning, denial of the exemption was unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 07 May 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=111756