https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50124 Notification No. 1/93 denied small-scale exemption only where the specified goods bore the brand name or trade name of another person. The key question was whether the mark "JK" belonged exclusively to J.K. Brothers; on the stated facts, it was not shown to be registered and there was no reliable evidence of exclusive legal ownership. A brand name not exclusively owned and used by more than one manufacturer remains in the public domain, so the exclusion does not apply. The departmental circular was consistent with this view, and the exemption could not be denied merely because the goods bore the mark "JK". en-us Tue, 05 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Aug 2010 18:06:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50124 Notification No. 1/93 denied small-scale exemption only where the specified goods bore the brand name or trade name of another person. The key question was whether the mark "JK" belonged exclusively to J.K. Brothers; on the stated facts, it was not shown to be registered and there was no reliable evidence of exclusive legal ownership. A brand name not exclusively owned and used by more than one manufacturer remains in the public domain, so the exclusion does not apply. The departmental circular was consistent with this view, and the exemption could not be denied merely because the goods bore the mark "JK". Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 05 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=50124