https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124837 Use of another concern's brand name can defeat small scale exemption even if the mark is unregistered, and registration is not decisive for Notification No. 8/2000. On the material before it, the Tribunal took a prima facie view that the mark "rollin" was a brand name owned by one group concern and used by the applicant for clearance of goods, which indicated ineligibility for exemption. It also found that the appellant had not shown sufficient hardship to justify complete waiver of pre-deposit. Total waiver was therefore refused, while conditional relief was granted by requiring a deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs and staying recovery for the balance pending appeal. en-us Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:11:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124837 Use of another concern's brand name can defeat small scale exemption even if the mark is unregistered, and registration is not decisive for Notification No. 8/2000. On the material before it, the Tribunal took a prima facie view that the mark "rollin" was a brand name owned by one group concern and used by the applicant for clearance of goods, which indicated ineligibility for exemption. It also found that the appellant had not shown sufficient hardship to justify complete waiver of pre-deposit. Total waiver was therefore refused, while conditional relief was granted by requiring a deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs and staying recovery for the balance pending appeal. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 13 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=124837