Invoice description alone cannot deny small-scale exemption unless the goods themselves bear another's brand name.

Exemption under Notification No. 175/86 could not be denied merely because invoices described the goods as "Kirloskar Generating sets" when the generating sets themselves did not bear Kirloskar's brand name or trade name. The notification withdrew relief only where the manufacturer affixed the specified goods with another person's brand name or trade name, and invoice description alone was insufficient to trigger that exclusion. On the facts found, the goods were not branded on the product itself, so the exemption remained available and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 dated 1st March, 1986 was unavailable merely because the generating sets were described in invoices as "Kirloskar Generating sets" though the goods themselves did not bear Kirloskar's brand name or trade name.

Analysis: The exemption was denied by the adjudicating authority only on the basis of the invoice description. The relevant condition in the notification withdrew exemption where the manufacturer affixed the specified goods with the brand name or trade name of another person. The goods in question did not bear the Kirloskar name on them. The invoice description, without affixation of the brand name or trade name on the goods, was insufficient to attract the exclusion from exemption.

Conclusion: The benefit of the notification could not be denied on the facts found, and the appeal failed.

---