Brand-name use and substantive non-eligibility defeated tax holiday relief; temporary equipment use and delay did not cure the defect.

Temporary use of storage tanks obtained from a sister concern, pending installation of the unit's own tanks, was not treated as establishment solely or substantially with hired plant and machinery, so clause (v) did not bar relief. However, manufacturing goods exclusively for principals and affixing their established trade marks and brand names brought the unit within the mischief of clause (vi), disentitling it from the tax holiday scheme. Delay in disposal of the eligibility application did not override substantive non-fulfilment of the notification conditions and could not confer eligibility. The refusal of the eligibility certificate was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether temporary use of storage tanks obtained from a sister concern amounted to the unit being established solely or substantially with hired plant and machinery within clause (v) of the Explanation to the notification; (ii) whether affixing the trade marks and brand names of TOMCO and Shaw Wallace on goods manufactured for them attracted the bar under clause (vi) of the Explanation to the notification; and (iii) whether delay in disposal of the application for eligibility certificate justified grant of the certificate despite non-fulfilment of the notification conditions.

Issue (i): whether temporary use of storage tanks obtained from a sister concern amounted to the unit being established solely or substantially with hired plant and machinery within clause (v) of the Explanation to the notification.

Analysis: The storage tanks were used only for a limited intervening period pending installation of the petitioners' own tanks, after orders had already been placed for fabrication and before the first sale the unit had not been operating with hired equipment as part of its initial establishment. The Tribunal held that mere temporary use of such tanks could not be treated as establishment of the unit solely or substantially with hired machinery within the mischief of clause (v).

Conclusion: The objection under clause (v) failed and was not a valid ground to refuse the eligibility certificate.

Issue (ii): whether affixing the trade marks and brand names of TOMCO and Shaw Wallace on goods manufactured for them attracted the bar under clause (vi) of the Explanation to the notification.

Analysis: The object of the brand-name restriction is to deny tax holiday benefits to units using the backing of established trade marks or brand names. The petitioners manufactured exclusively for the named principals under arrangements by which the entire output was supplied to them, and the Tribunal treated such use as falling within the mischief of the notification. The contention that the bar was confined to industrial units within West Bengal was rejected, and the previous tribunal reasoning on the purpose of the restriction was applied.

Conclusion: The petitioners violated clause (vi) and could not claim the exemption scheme.

Issue (iii): whether delay in disposal of the application for eligibility certificate justified grant of the certificate despite non-fulfilment of the notification conditions.

Analysis: The Tribunal held that the intervals in disposal did not amount to inordinate delay and, in any event, delay could not confer eligibility where a substantive condition of the notification remained unfulfilled. No prejudice capable of overriding the statutory disqualification was established.

Conclusion: The plea based on delay was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to an eligibility certificate under the notification, and the refusal of the certificate was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Temporary use of equipment pending installation of own machinery does not necessarily amount to establishment with hired plant and machinery, but use of an established customer's trade mark or brand name in a manner that brings the unit within the mischief of the exemption notification disentitles the unit from tax holiday benefits; delay in disposal cannot cure substantive ineligibility.

---