Small-scale exemption survives where branded input material bears the supplier's mark, not the manufacturer's own disqualifying brand use.

Small-scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. is not denied merely because the raw material used in manufacture bears the brand name or house mark of its supplier. The relevant test is whether the assessee itself uses that brand name in a manner barred by the notification; the supplier's mark on input material does not, by itself, attract the exclusion. The article notes that this principle was followed in preference to a contrary Tribunal view because the earlier precedent had been affirmed by the Supreme Court. On that basis, corrugated products made from branded galvanized CRC sheets remained eligible for the exemption.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee could be denied the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. merely because the raw material used in manufacture bore the brand name of the raw material manufacturer.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier decision, affirmed by the Supreme Court, that an assessee is not disqualified from availing small-scale exemption merely because the inputs supplied by another manufacturer carry that manufacturer's house mark or brand name. The relevant consideration is whether the assessee itself uses the brand name in a manner that attracts the exclusion in the notification, and not whether the raw material already bears a mark belonging to its supplier. A contrary view in another Tribunal decision was not preferred in light of the affirmed precedent.

Conclusion: The assessee could not be denied the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. on the ground that the plain galvanized CRC sheets used in corrugation bore the brand name of the CRC sheet manufacturer.

Ratio Decidendi: Small-scale exemption cannot be denied solely because the raw material used in manufacture carries the brand name or trade name of its manufacturer, where the assessee does not itself use that brand in the manner barred by the notification.

---