Brand name exemption under Notification No. 16/97-C.E. upheld where ownership of the brand was not proven against the assessee.

Goods bearing another person's brand name were excluded from the small scale exemption under Notification No. 16/97-C.E., so confiscation and penalty were sustainable only where ownership by others was admitted. Confiscation was upheld for goods marked Citizen and Casio because those brand names were shown to belong to third parties. For the remaining branded goods, the Revenue failed to prove that the brands belonged to another person, and the exemption could not be denied on that basis. The separate penalty on the Director was unwarranted. Accordingly, confiscation of the remaining goods was set aside, and the redemption fine and company penalty were reduced.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 16/97-C.E. could be denied and confiscation and penalty sustained in respect of goods bearing the brand names of another person, and whether relief could be granted in respect of goods carrying other brand names for which ownership was not established.

Analysis: Notification No. 16/97-C.E. excludes excisable goods bearing the brand name of another person from the small scale exemption. The goods bearing the brand names Citizen and Casio were admitted to belong to others, and confiscation and penalty were therefore sustainable to that extent. For the remaining brand names, the Revenue produced no material to establish the identity of the brand owner. In the absence of proof that those brand names belonged to another person, the exemption could not be denied on that basis. The separate penalty on the Director was also found unwarranted.

Conclusion: Confiscation was upheld only for the goods bearing the brand names Citizen and Casio. Confiscation of the remaining goods was set aside. The redemption fine and the company penalty were reduced, and the penalty on the Director was set aside.

---