Brand-name exemption denied where goods were cleared under another's brand and suppression justified extended limitation.

Small scale industry exemption under Notification No. 8/2002-C.E. was unavailable where the goods were cleared under a brand name admittedly owned by another person, because the condition requiring use of the assessee's own brand was not satisfied. The assessee's own statement showing ownership in another entity was sufficient to negate eligibility. The extended period of limitation was also available because returns had wrongly represented the brand as the assessee's own, and the true ownership emerged only later, establishing suppression of a material fact.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to small scale industry exemption under Notification No. 8/2002-C.E. when the product was cleared under a brand name owned by another person; (ii) Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable on the ground of suppression of the true ownership of the brand name.

Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to small scale industry exemption under Notification No. 8/2002-C.E. when the product was cleared under a brand name owned by another person.

Analysis: The exemption required disclosure that the brand name used for the goods did not belong to any other person. The assessee had initially claimed the brand name as its own, but the admitted statement of the director showed that at the relevant time the brand name belonged to another entity. In view of that admission, no further proof from the department was necessary.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to the small scale industry exemption.

Issue (ii): Whether the extended period of limitation was invocable on the ground of suppression of the true ownership of the brand name.

Analysis: The returns filed during the relevant period disclosed that the brand name belonged to the assessee, whereas the contrary fact came to light only in June 2007 and the show cause notice followed shortly thereafter. Since the relevant fact had been withheld from the department until discovery, suppression was established for limitation purposes.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was correctly invoked.

Final Conclusion: The denial of exemption and the demand based on the extended limitation period were upheld, and the appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where exemption is conditional upon the brand name not belonging to another person, an admitted use of another's brand name defeats the exemption, and concealment of that fact justifies invocation of the extended period of limitation.

---