Brand-name restriction under small-scale exemption does not apply when trade-name appears only on packing containers, not on the goods themselves.

Plastic films were not disqualified from the small-scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. merely because the trade-name appeared on the packing container instead of being embossed on the films themselves. The brand-name restriction in para 7 applies where the goods bear a trade-name of another person, and the exception for cases where marking on the container is necessary cannot be applied broadly without proof that the goods themselves could not bear the mark. On the facts recorded, the films themselves did not bear another person's trade-name, so the exemption remained available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were disqualified from availing the exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. on the ground that the trade-name was found on the packing container and not embossed on the plastic films themselves.

Analysis: The exemption was denied below on the footing that the goods were covered by the brand-name restriction introduced in para 7 of the notification. The record showed that the mark was appearing on the container used for packing the films, while nothing was established to show that the goods themselves were incapable of bearing such marking. The exception for goods where branding on the container is necessary could not be extended universally. On the facts proved, the plastic films themselves were not bearing the trade-name on behalf of another person.

Conclusion: The appellants were not hit by the brand-name restriction and remained entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E.

---