SSI exemption barred for goods cleared under another's brand name, and package branding did not avoid the notification restriction.

SSI exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE and Notification No. 1/93-CE was unavailable where the goods were cleared under another person's brand name. The record showed that the diesel exhaust purifiers were sold in packages bearing the HONEYCAT brand of a foreign company, and the agreement relied on by the assessee was not shown to cover the disputed period. The notifications barred exemption when specified goods carried the brand name or trade name of another person, and affixation on the carton or package did not avoid the bar because the goods were cleared in those packages. The proviso to paragraph 7 was held inapplicable on the facts, and the limitation plea was not entertained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to small scale industry exemption under Notification No. 175/86-CE dated 01.03.1986 and Notification No. 1/93-CE dated 28.02.1993 for goods cleared under the brand name of another person, and whether affixation of the brand name on the package instead of on the goods took the case outside the bar contained in the notifications.

Analysis: The assessee cleared diesel exhaust purifiers during the relevant period under the brand name HONEYCAT, which belonged to a foreign company. The agreement relied upon by the assessee was not shown to be in force for the period in dispute, and the record established that the brand name was used on the packages through which the goods were cleared. The notifications barred exemption where specified goods were affixed with the brand name or trade name of another person who was not eligible for the exemption. The fact that the brand name appeared on the carton or package did not assist the assessee, because the goods were cleared in those packages and the trade connection with the brand owner was apparent. The plea based on the proviso to paragraph 7 was not available on the facts, and the limitation plea was not entertained as it had not been raised earlier.

Conclusion: The assessee was not entitled to SSI exemption under the notifications, and the demand of duty was sustainable.

---