SSI exemption and brand name bar fail where invoices merely identify goods, not the goods themselves.

SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93 could not be denied where the goods themselves did not bear another person's brand name or trade name. The description "TISCOG" in invoices was used only to identify goods manufactured to customer specifications, and the record showed it was not affixed on the Cog Stools or shown to be TISCO's brand name. Mere reference to a name in invoices or challans was insufficient to attract the notification's bar. On that basis, the duty demand and penalties founded on denial of exemption were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 could be denied and duty demand and penalties sustained merely because the goods were described in invoices as TISCOG, when the brand name was not affixed on the goods and the description was used only for identification according to customer specifications.

Analysis: The notification denied exemption only to specified goods bearing the brand name or trade name of another person. The record showed that TISCOG was not the brand name of TISCO and was not affixed on the Cog Stools. The description in invoices was only for identifying goods manufactured to TISCO specifications. Mere mention of a name in invoices or challans, without the goods themselves bearing another person's brand name, was held insufficient to attract the bar of the notification. The reasoning also applied to the imposition of duty and penalties founded on denial of the exemption.

Conclusion: The exemption could not be denied on the facts found, and the demand of duty and the penalties were unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: For denial of SSI exemption under a notification barring goods bearing another person's brand name or trade name, the department must prove that the goods themselves bear such brand name or trade name; mere reference in invoices or challans is not enough.

---