SSI exemption and brand-name restriction require a clear finding that goods bear another person's ineligible trade name.

Denial of SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. requires a clear finding that the goods bear the brand name or trade name of another ineligible person. A general observation that the goods were manufactured under a particular brand is insufficient by itself. An appellate authority must also act strictly within the scope of remand directions and address the specific eligibility question directed for reconsideration, including relevant Board instructions. Where the remand mandate is not followed and no definite finding is returned on the brand-name issue, the denial of exemption is unsustainable in law and consequential relief follows.

---

---

Issues: Whether the denial of benefit under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. to the branded goods was sustainable when the Commissioner (Appeals) did not comply with the earlier remand directions and did not return a definite finding on use of another person's brand name or trade name.

Analysis: The matter had already been remanded twice with a specific direction to re-examine eligibility in the light of the Larger Bench ruling. In the remand proceedings, the Commissioner (Appeals) travelled beyond the mandate and decided matters that were not open, without addressing the core requirement under Explanation 7 to the notification, namely whether the disputed goods in fact bore the brand name or trade name of another ineligible person. A general observation that the goods were manufactured bearing a particular brand was held insufficient to deny the exemption. The order also failed to deal with the Board's instructions relevant to eligibility.

Conclusion: The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was unsustainable in law and was set aside. The appeal was allowed, and the assessee was held entitled to consequential relief as per law.

Ratio Decidendi: Denial of SSI exemption under the brand-name restriction requires a clear finding that the goods bear the brand name or trade name of another ineligible person, and an appellate authority must act strictly within the scope of remand directions.

---