Brand name service requires proof of marketing a client's branded service; exemption cannot be denied without evidence.

A consignment agent selling branded readymade garments as a trader was not shown to have promoted or marketed a branded service for the client in the manner required to fall outside the small tax payer exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-S.T. The record indicated that any activity was confined to promoting sales of goods, not rendering a brand name service. In the absence of evidence establishing the necessary marketing of branded service, denial of the exemption was not justified. The appellant was therefore entitled to small tax payer exemption and could not be treated as providing brand name service.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant, acting as a consignment agent for sale of branded readymade garments, was providing brand name service so as to be denied small tax payer exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-S.T. dated 1-3-2005.

Analysis: The appellant sold goods in its outlet as a trader and consignment agent. No evidence showed that it had promoted or marketed branded service for the recipient in the manner necessary to treat the activity as brand name service. On the record, the service, if any, was confined to promotion of sales of goods for the client and did not establish marketing of branded service. In the absence of such evidence, denial of exemption was not justified.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the benefit of small tax payer exemption and was not liable to be treated as providing brand name service.

---