Brand name on raw material does not by itself defeat small scale exemption for corrugated sheet manufacture.

The exemption under Notification No. 1/93 could not be denied merely because the raw material used in making corrugated sheets bore the supplier's brand name. The decisive test was whether the manufacturer itself affixed or used a brand name on the finished goods in a way that attracted the small scale industry bar. Where the assessee did not itself use the brand name on the corrugated sheets, the use of branded plain galvanized CRC sheets as input was insufficient to forfeit the exemption. The manufacturer was therefore entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1/93.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 could be denied to a manufacturer of corrugated sheets merely because the raw material used in the manufacturing process bore the brand name of the supplier manufacturer.

Analysis: The decisive consideration was whether the assessee itself affixed or used the brand name in a manner that would attract the bar under the small scale industry exemption. The prior view affirming entitlement where the assessee did not itself use the brand name on the finished goods was followed, and the contrary line of reasoning was not adopted. The mere use of raw material carrying the manufacturer's brand name was held insufficient to disentitle the assessee from the exemption.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 and could not be denied the exemption on the ground that the plain galvanized CRC sheets used in corrugation bore the brand name of their manufacturer.

---