Buyer's name on goods is not a brand name unless it shows a trade connection with the goods.

Affixing the buyer's name on RCC poles did not amount to use of a brand name for purposes of Notification No. 175/86, because a brand name requires a mark used in trade to a connection between the goods and a brand owner. The word "KEB" was only the purchaser's name and did not show that the goods were marketed under a seller's trade identity. The paragraph 7 restriction in the notification therefore did not apply, and the small-scale exemption remained available. A precedent concerning goods sold in the market under the seller's name was distinguished on that factual basis, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether affixing the words "KEB" on R.C.C. poles manufactured by the assessee rendered the goods branded and thereby disentitled them to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86.

Analysis: The expression "brand name" in the notification contemplates use of a name in relation to the specified goods to indicate a connection in the course of trade between the goods and the brand owner. The words "KEB" were found not to establish such a trade connection, as KEB was only the buyer of the poles and not a dealer or seller of the goods in the market. On that reasoning, the mischief of paragraph 7 of Notification No. 175/86 was held not to apply. The cited precedent was distinguished on the ground that it involved goods sold in the market under the seller's name.

Conclusion: The affixation of "KEB" did not amount to use of a brand name so as to deny the exemption, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A buyer's name marked on goods does not constitute a brand name for the purpose of denying small-scale exemption unless it indicates a connection in the course of trade between the goods and a brand owner.

---