Branding must attach to the goods themselves before SSI exemption can be denied for cookies sold through branded outlets.

Cookies cleared without any brand name affixed to the goods themselves were not treated as branded goods merely because they were sold from retail outlets displaying a brand name and under invoices bearing that name. On that basis, SSI exemption was held available for the unbranded cookies. A separate duty dispute was remanded for fresh verification because the assessee claimed that unutilized CENVAT credit could be reversed, which would affect eligibility under Notification No. 8/2002-C.E. and the duty quantum. The operative principle stated is that branding must attach to the goods themselves, not merely to the outlet or invoice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cookies sold without affixing the brand name, but from retail outlets displaying the brand name and under invoices bearing that name, could be treated as branded goods so as to deny small scale industry exemption. (ii) Whether the duty demand confirmed against the assessee required fresh verification in view of the plea that unutilized CENVAT credit of Rs. 8,529/- could be expunged to claim the benefit of Notification No. 8/2002-C.E.

Issue (i): Whether cookies sold without affixing the brand name, but from retail outlets displaying the brand name and under invoices bearing that name, could be treated as branded goods so as to deny small scale industry exemption.

Analysis: The unbranded cookies were cleared from retail outlets that displayed the brand name, and the sale invoices also carried that name. The decisive question was whether these surrounding features were enough to convert the goods into branded goods. The controlling principle applied was that branding must attach to the goods themselves, and mere display of a brand name on the outlet or on invoices does not by itself establish that the goods were cleared under that brand name.

Conclusion: The goods could not be treated as branded merely because they were sold from a branded outlet or under invoices bearing the brand name. SSI exemption was available, and the Revenue's appeal failed on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether the duty demand confirmed against the assessee required fresh verification in view of the plea that unutilized CENVAT credit of Rs. 8,529/- could be expunged to claim the benefit of Notification No. 8/2002-C.E.

Analysis: The assessee pressed a limited alternative plea that the stated CENVAT credit had remained unutilized and could be reversed, which would affect eligibility under the exemption notifications and the quantum of duty. As this factual assertion had not been examined by the adjudicating authority, verification was necessary before the entitlement could be decided finally.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the Commissioner for verification of the unutilized credit and for fresh adjudication on the assessee's alternative claim under Notification No. 8/2002-C.E.

Final Conclusion: The decision sustained SSI exemption for the unbranded cookies sold through the outlets, while sending back the surviving duty dispute for reconsideration on the assessee's alternative exemption plea.

Ratio Decidendi: A product does not become branded goods merely because it is sold from a retail outlet or under invoices bearing another person's brand name; the brand must be affixed to the goods themselves for denial of SSI exemption.

---