Foreign brand name use defeats small-scale exemption; suppression supports extended limitation and duty must be recomputed on a cum-duty basis.

Goods manufactured under a foreign brand name on payment of royalty were held ineligible for small-scale exemption because the brand did not belong to the manufacturer. Suppression of the foreign brand use justified invocation of the extended period of limitation, and a revenue-neutrality plea was rejected as insufficient to displace suppression for limitation purposes. Where duty was held payable, the sale price had to be treated as cum-duty price and the assessable value recomputed after granting abatement of the duty element. The penalty was maintained in principle but reduced as excessive, and the matter was remanded for recomputation of duty and modification of penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the goods manufactured under a foreign brand name were entitled to small-scale exemption under the relevant notifications; (ii) whether the extended period of limitation was invocable; (iii) whether the assessable value had to be worked out on a cum-duty basis with consequential recalculation of duty and penalty.

Issue (i): whether the goods manufactured under a foreign brand name were entitled to small-scale exemption under the relevant notifications.

Analysis: The trade mark agreement showed that the appellants were using the mark of a foreign company on payment of royalty and that the brand did not belong to them. The cited circular on customer-specified components was found inapplicable because the goods were not manufactured under the customers' brand name, but under the brand of another person. The larger bench decision supporting denial of exemption for foreign brand-name goods was applied.

Conclusion: The benefit of small-scale exemption was not available to the appellants.

Issue (ii): whether the extended period of limitation was invocable.

Analysis: The use of the foreign brand name was held to have been suppressed from the department. The plea of revenue neutrality, based on possible credit in the hands of buyers, was rejected as insufficient to negate suppression for limitation purposes.

Conclusion: The extended period of limitation was correctly invoked.

Issue (iii): whether the assessable value had to be worked out on a cum-duty basis with consequential recalculation of duty and penalty.

Analysis: Since duty was held payable, the sale price had to be treated as cum-duty price and the assessable value re-determined after granting abatement of the duty element. The matter also required verification of the rate of duty applied. On penalty, the finding of liability was affirmed, but the quantum was considered excessive and reduced.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded for recomputation of duty on a cum-duty basis, and the penalty was reduced to Rs. 1 lakh.

Final Conclusion: The exemption claim failed, the demand period was upheld, and the case was sent back only for recomputation of duty and modification of penalty.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods manufactured under a foreign brand name on royalty basis are not entitled to small-scale exemption, and suppression of such use justifies invocation of the extended period of limitation; where duty is payable, the sale price must be treated as cum-duty price for recomputation.

---