SSI exemption for branded goods depends on primary packing; a mark on secondary packing alone does not defeat relief.

SSI exemption was available where the brand name of another person appeared only on secondary packing and not on the tins in which the goods were sold. For central excise purposes, the relevant container for paints was the tin, and a mark on transport packing outside the levy could be ignored. The exclusion clause in Notification No. 16/97 applied only to goods bearing another person's brand name on the goods or relevant primary packing. The duty demand and penalty were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to small scale industry exemption when the brand name of another person appeared only on the secondary packing and not on the tins in which the goods were sold, and whether the consequent demand of duty and penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 16/97 denied benefit only to goods bearing the brand name or trade name of another person. For paints, the relevant consideration was the container in which the goods were presented for assessment. The tins did not bear the brand name of another person. The impugned mark appeared only on the secondary packing used for transportation, which was not relevant for levy of duty. A mark placed on packaging outside the levy is to be ignored for central excise purposes.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the exemption, and the demand of duty and penalty were unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: For SSI exemption, a brand name appearing only on secondary packing and not on the goods or their relevant primary packing does not attract the exclusion clause of the notification.

---