https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33310 Small-scale exemption was not denied because the trifid logo was not proved to be the brand name or trade name of another person. The Tribunal found that the mark was a common design, the manufacturers' registered brand name was distinct, and the alleged owner had expressly disowned proprietary rights in the symbol. Since a trademark disqualifies exemption only when it indicates a trade connection with another person, mere affixation of a non-owned or disowned mark did not trigger the exclusion. The assessees therefore remained eligible for the exemption, and the duty demand and penalties could not stand. en-us Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 03 May 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33310 Small-scale exemption was not denied because the trifid logo was not proved to be the brand name or trade name of another person. The Tribunal found that the mark was a common design, the manufacturers' registered brand name was distinct, and the alleged owner had expressly disowned proprietary rights in the symbol. Since a trademark disqualifies exemption only when it indicates a trade connection with another person, mere affixation of a non-owned or disowned mark did not trigger the exclusion. The assessees therefore remained eligible for the exemption, and the duty demand and penalties could not stand. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 25 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33310