Brand name exemption for small scale units failed for want of proof of third-party ownership and penalty support.

Small scale industry exemption was examined in relation to paints cleared under a trading agency's brand name, together with the sustainability of duty demand and penalties under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The trading agency's partner filed an affidavit denying ownership of the brand name, and a similar statement before Sales Tax authorities was relied upon by the appellate authority. As the Department produced no independent evidence proving that the brand belonged to another person, and the manager's statement had been retracted by affidavit, the factual basis for denying exemption and imposing penalty did not survive. The demand and penalties were held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the manufacturers were disentitled to small scale industry exemption on the ground that the paints were cleared under the brand name of the trading agency, and whether the duty demand and penalties under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and rule 209A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 were sustainable.

Analysis: The trading agency's partner had filed an affidavit stating that the agency did not own the brand name, and the Commissioner (Appeals) also relied on a statement recorded before the Sales Tax authorities to the same effect. The Department did not produce independent evidence to show that the names used on the goods belonged to the trading agency, and the statement of the manager on which reliance was placed had been retracted by affidavit. In the absence of reliable evidence establishing ownership of the brand name by another person, the factual basis for denial of exemption and for consequential penalty did not survive.

Conclusion: The finding that the goods were not shown to bear the brand name of another person was upheld, and the duty demand and penalties were not sustainable against the assessee.

---