SSI exemption for PET bottle makers sustained where cross-branding resulted from accidental die interchange, not deliberate use.

PET bottle manufacture bearing another unit's brand name did not, on the stated facts, justify denial of SSI exemption under Notification No. 9/2000-C.E. The records showed that both units sent dies for repair around the same time and, after return, each began producing bottles with the other unit's brand name, supporting an accidental interchange of dies rather than deliberate use of another's brand. In the absence of evidence of a planned arrangement, prior orders for cross-manufacture, or documentary proof of intentional branded production, the Revenue's case failed. The exemption was therefore available and the duty demand was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessees were denied the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 9/2000-C.E. on the ground that PET bottles were manufactured bearing each other's brand names, and whether such manufacture was attributable to a deliberate use of another unit's dies or merely to an accidental exchange of dies after repair.

Analysis: Both units manufactured PET bottles bearing their own brand names and had sent their dies for repair around the same time. The records showed that after the dies were returned, each unit began manufacturing bottles bearing the other unit's brand name. The demand itself covered the same period for both units, which supported the explanation that the dies had been interchanged by mistake. The absence of evidence showing a deliberate arrangement, prior orders for manufacture by one unit for the other, or documentary proof of intentional branded production weighed against the Revenue's case. On these facts, the use of the other unit's brand name was treated as accidental and not a basis to deny the exemption.

Conclusion: The assessees were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 9/2000-C.E., and the duty demand was not sustainable.

---