Brand-name exclusion under excise exemption also bars inclusion in clearance-value slabs for eligibility computation.

Goods bearing the brand name of a person not entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. were excluded from the benefit of the notification and could not simultaneously be counted in the aggregate clearance value for slab computation. The legal position applied was that the same branded goods could not be treated as ineligible for exemption under the brand-name condition yet included as specified clearances only to test slab eligibility. On that basis, the branded clearances were not required to be added to the assessee's clearance value for exemption slabs, and the Revenue's appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for computing the aggregate value of clearances for slabs under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. dated 01-03-1986, the value of goods cleared under a brand name owned by a person ineligible for the exemption was required to be included.

Analysis: The Notification excluded goods bearing the brand name of a person not entitled to the benefit of the notification. Once such branded goods were excluded for the purpose of the exemption, they could not be treated as specified goods for inclusion in the clearance value merely to determine slab eligibility. The Court found no legal basis to include them for computation while excluding them for the brand name condition.

Conclusion: The branded goods cleared under the ineligible brand name were not required to be included in the assessee's clearance value for computing the exemption slabs under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. The Revenue's appeal failed.

---