Branded services exemption cannot be denied where collections are under the principal's trade name but services are rendered on another's behalf.

Services rendered on behalf of another entity do not become branded services merely because collections are received under the principal's brand or trade name; on the facts, the appellant provided Business Auxiliary Service in its own name for commission, so the small scale exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-S.T. could not be denied on the branded service objection. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the notification.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of SSI exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-S.T. dated 01.03.2005, or whether the exemption was barred on the ground that the services were branded services.

Analysis: The appellant rendered Business Auxiliary Service on behalf of another service provider and received commission for such activity. The record showed that the appellant was acting under its own name while receiving collections under the brand or trade name of the principal. On these facts, the services could not be treated as branded services of the appellant so as to deny the exemption.

Conclusion: The denial of exemption was unsustainable, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 6/2005-S.T. dated 01.03.2005.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Services rendered on behalf of another entity do not become branded services of the service provider merely because collections are received under the principal's brand or trade name, unless the service provider itself is shown to be providing branded services.

---