Brand name identification marks do not bar small-scale exemption, while suppressed clearances can still justify duty recomputation.

A marking used only to identify the vehicle for which brake shoes were meant did not amount to use of another person's brand name, so the small-scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. was available. The finding of clandestine removal was, however, sustained because seized records, statements and later corroborative material supported suppression of actual clearances. Duty was therefore remanded for fresh computation, with the assessees allowed to place material on exports and penalty. Confiscation was not sustained because the goods were not found to bear another person's brand name.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessees were disentitled to small-scale exemption on the ground that the brake shoes bore the brand name or logo of another person. (ii) Whether the clearances were clandestine and duty had to be recomputed, along with the consequential penalty and confiscation consequences.

Issue (i): Whether the assessees were disentitled to small-scale exemption on the ground that the brake shoes bore the brand name or logo of another person.

Analysis: The benefit of the small-scale exemption is unavailable where the goods bear the brand name or trade name of another person. On the facts, the assessees were selling the goods under their own brand name, and the disputed markings were used only to indicate the particular vehicle for which the brake shoe was meant. Such identification marks did not amount to use of another person's brand name in the sense contemplated by the notification.

Conclusion: The assessees were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E., and the allegation of use of another person's brand name was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the clearances were clandestine and duty had to be recomputed, along with the consequential penalty and confiscation consequences.

Analysis: The material on record, including the seized records and statements, supported the finding that actual clearances had been suppressed. The purported retraction did not displace the later corroborative statement of the other partner, and the record also showed subsequent deposits against the duty liability. The finding of suppression was therefore sustained, but the quantum of duty required fresh computation. The assessees were also permitted to place material regarding exports and to make submissions on penalty. As the goods were not bearing brand name, confiscation could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The finding of clandestine removal was upheld, the duty demand was remitted for recomputation, and confiscation was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The assessees succeeded on the brand-name issue and on confiscation, but the finding of suppressed clearances was maintained with a remand for fresh quantification and further consideration of penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: A marking used only to identify the vehicle for which a product is meant does not constitute use of another person's brand name for denying small-scale exemption; where suppression of clearances is otherwise established, the duty may be sustained with recomputation on remand.

---