Brand-name exemption cannot be denied on invoice references alone where the goods do not bear another's trade name.

Exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. could not be denied for hydraulic door closers merely because the word "LINK" appeared in invoices. The brand-name restriction in para 4 applies only where the goods themselves bear the brand name or trade name of another person. As the record did not show that the respondents had affixed or embossed "LINK" on the goods, the invoice reference alone was insufficient to attract the bar on exemption. The exemption was therefore available, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the benefit of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. dated 28-02-1993 was available to hydraulic door closers where the brand name was not affixed on the goods but the word "LINK" appeared in the invoices.

Analysis: Para 4 of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. denies exemption only to goods bearing the brand name or trade name of another person. The record did not show that the respondents had affixed or embossed the brand name "LINK" on the hydraulic door closers. The denial of exemption rested only on the use of the word "LINK" in invoices, and such mention by itself does not satisfy the requirement that the goods bear the brand name of another person.

Conclusion: The exemption was available to the hydraulic door closers, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption under a brand-name restriction cannot be denied unless the goods themselves bear the brand name or trade name of another person; a mere invoice reference is insufficient.

---