Small-scale industry exemption dispute remanded after factual infirmities in disclosure findings and brand name evidence undermined the adjudication.

Denial of small-scale industry exemption was found unsustainable where the assessee had disclosed composition, manufacturing process and end-use, and the record did not support the inference that vital particulars were withheld. The finding that the brand name was unregistered for the relevant goods was also factually incorrect because the trademark certificate covered them. Because the adjudication rested on material factual infirmity, the order sustaining duty liability and penalty was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication, leaving classification and other open issues for fresh decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the impugned order denying small-scale industry exemption, sustaining duty liability and penalty on the ground of use of the brand name and alleged withholding of material particulars, was sustainable, and whether the matter required remand for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The record showed that the assessee's reply to the departmental query disclosed composition, manufacturing process and end-use, but did not enclose labels and brochures. The omission was material because the departmental case proceeded on the alleged non-disclosure of labels, and the adjudicating authority had relied on an inference that vital information was withheld. The finding that the brand name was not registered only for animal feed supplements was also found to be factually incorrect, since the trademark certificate covered the relevant goods. In these circumstances, the adjudication suffered from material factual infirmity and could not be sustained. Since the matter required fresh determination, the Tribunal declined to go into the classification controversy and other open issues.

Conclusion: The order was set aside and the matter was remanded for de novo adjudication; the assessee succeeded to that extent.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was not finally decided on classification or exemption merits, and the parties were directed to agitate the unresolved issues before the adjudicating authority in the remand proceedings.

---