SSI exemption for branded goods depends on proof of third-party brand use; unproved allegations cannot defeat the benefit.

SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93 remained available where the manufacturer of pressure cookers cleared goods under its own brand name, and the department failed to prove use of another person's brand. The record showed clearances under "Windsor" only, with no reliable evidence that the goods were sold under "Philco" or "Windsor and Wilson". A partner's statement was not a valid admission of third-party brand use, and the lower authorities had misread it. On these facts, the conditions of the notification were not breached, and the exemption was available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93 dated 28-2-1993 when the department alleged use of brand names belonging to others on the manufactured pressure cookers.

Analysis: The record showed that the assessee was manufacturing pressure cookers and clearing them under its own brand name "Windsor". There was no reliable evidence that the brand name belonged to any other person or that the goods were ever cleared under the brand names "Philco" or "Windsor and Wilson". The department relied principally on a statement of one partner, but that statement did not amount to an admission of use of those brand names by the assessee. The lower authorities had misread the statement, and the invoices on record showed clearance under the brand name "Windsor" only.

Conclusion: The assessee did not violate the conditions of Notification No. 1/93 and was entitled to the SSI exemption.

---