Strict compliance with exemption notifications bars relief where brand-name conditions are breached and penalty follows.

Exemption notifications must be complied with strictly, and an assessee cannot claim their benefit by stretching the terms or ignoring express conditions. Here, the Tribunal's factual finding that the appellant's label used a brand name in the same manner as another manufacturer's label meant the notification conditions were not satisfied. On that basis, the exemption was denied and the consequential penalty was sustained. The legal position applied was that a claimant to exemption must establish full compliance with the notification, and where the brand-name condition is breached on the facts, relief is unavailable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification despite use of a brand name found to be the same as that of another manufacturer, and whether penalty was sustainable.

Analysis: Benefit of an exemption notification is available only on strict compliance with its terms. The Tribunal's finding that the appellant's label used the brand name in the same manner as the other manufacturer's label was a factual finding. In such circumstances, the exemption could not be extended by stretching the notification or by ignoring its conditions. The denial of exemption and the consequential penalty were supported by the settled principle that an assessee claiming exemption must satisfy the notification strictly.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and in favour of the Revenue. The denial of exemption and confirmation of penalty were upheld.

---