Small-scale exemption cannot be denied unless the goods themselves bear another person's brand or trade name.

Small-scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. is excluded only where the goods themselves bear the brand name or trade name of another person. In job-work manufacture of shoddy blankets, descriptive names appearing only on challans and invoices for identification of specifications, colours or designs do not amount to the goods bearing a brand name. In the absence of proof that the blankets were affixed with another person's brand or trade name, denial of exemption is unwarranted and the associated duty demand and penalty cannot be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was available to shoddy blankets manufactured on job work basis where the blankets themselves did not bear any brand name or trade name, but the challans and invoices contained descriptive names.

Analysis: The exemption under paragraph 4 of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. is excluded only when the specified goods bear the brand name or trade name of another person. The Revenue had to establish that the goods themselves carried such brand name or trade name. Mere reference to descriptive names in challans or invoices, used for identification of different specifications, colour schemes or designs, does not amount to the goods bearing a brand name. In the absence of evidence that the blankets were affixed with any brand name or trade name, denial of the exemption was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The exemption was admissible and the appeal succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand and penalty could not be sustained because the goods were not shown to bear the brand name or trade name of another person.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption under a small-scale notification cannot be denied unless the goods themselves bear the brand name or trade name of another person; descriptive references in invoices or challans are insufficient.

---