https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49814 Exemption under Notification No. 1/93 for small scale units depended on whether the excisable goods bore the brand name or trade name of another person. The distributorship agreement, including the clause providing for transfer of the mark on termination, was treated as indicating that the mark was being regarded as the appellant's own. The appellant's declaration under Rule 173B and application for registration in its own name supported that position, while the department produced no independent evidence to prove third-party ownership. The brand name was therefore not established to belong to another person, and the exemption remained available. en-us Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Aug 2010 16:10:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49814 Exemption under Notification No. 1/93 for small scale units depended on whether the excisable goods bore the brand name or trade name of another person. The distributorship agreement, including the clause providing for transfer of the mark on termination, was treated as indicating that the mark was being regarded as the appellant's own. The appellant's declaration under Rule 173B and application for registration in its own name supported that position, while the department produced no independent evidence to prove third-party ownership. The brand name was therefore not established to belong to another person, and the exemption remained available. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 21 Jun 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49814