Job work clearances cannot be treated as another concern's manufacture for denying small scale exemption.

Clearances made on job work basis were held not to be attributable to the other concern for denying small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. The notification applied where the aggregate clearances of a manufacturer, or from a factory by one or more manufacturers, crossed the prescribed limit, and to specified goods bearing another person's brand name or trade name. Because the respondent itself manufactured the goods from raw materials supplied by the other concern, and no brand-name bar was alleged, the clearances could not be treated as those of the other concern. Denial of the exemption was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether clearances of goods manufactured by the respondent on job work basis for another concern could be treated as clearances manufactured by that concern so as to deny small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E.

Analysis: The notification excluded clearances only where the aggregate value of clearances, by a manufacturer or from a factory by one or more manufacturers, exceeded the prescribed limit in the preceding financial year, and also dealt with specified goods bearing the brand name or trade name of another person. The respondent itself manufactured the goods, though from raw materials supplied by the other concern, and the mere fact that the buyer was not eligible for exemption did not make the respondent's manufacture attributable to that buyer. There was no allegation that the benefit was unavailable on account of use of a brand name.

Conclusion: The clearances made by the respondent could not be treated as if they were manufactured by the other concern, and the denial of small scale exemption was unsustainable.

---