Small scale exemption turns on pre-clearance brand-name affixation; later marking after removal does not defeat relief.

Small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. cannot be denied unless it is shown that another person's brand name was affixed on the goods before clearance from the manufacturer's premises. The record accepted by the Tribunal showed that the gearboxes were removed without the brand name "CUSA" and that the nameplates were affixed only later, after the goods had left the factory for further processing and dispatch. In the absence of contrary evidence proving pre-clearance affixation in the appellant's factory, the condition for denying the exemption was not met, and the demand and penalties were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. in respect of the gearboxes cleared from its factory, on the question whether the brand name "CUSA" had been affixed on the goods before removal.

Analysis: The evidence accepted in the record showed that the gearboxes were cleared from the appellant's premises without the brand name. The statements relied upon indicated that the nameplates were affixed later, after the goods had been collected from the appellant's factory and taken elsewhere for further processing and dispatch. In the absence of contrary evidence establishing affixation of the brand name in the appellant's factory, the condition for denial of small scale exemption was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E.; the demand and penalties could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption under the small scale notification cannot be denied unless the brand name of another person is shown to have been affixed on the goods before their clearance from the manufacturer's premises.

---