Third-party brand name on invoices alone cannot prove branded clearance; duty demand and penalties were not sustained.

Mere use of another's brand name on letterheads and invoices was held insufficient to establish clearance of goods under that brand name. The record showed only that third-party brand names appeared on documents, but there was no supporting evidence that the goods themselves were cleared with those marks. As the Revenue failed to dislodge the lower appellate authority's factual finding, suspicion based on invoicing and letterhead usage could not sustain the allegation. The finding that the goods were not cleared under third-party brand names was upheld, and the duty demand and penalties were not sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether mere affixing of another's brand name on letterheads and invoices, without further evidence of clearance of goods under such brand name, justified confirmation of duty demand and penalty.

Analysis: The record reflected a factual finding that the brand name of third parties appeared on the letterheads and invoices, but there was no supporting evidence to establish that the goods themselves were cleared with the brand name of others. The Revenue did not produce material to dislodge the factual conclusion recorded by the lower appellate authority. Suspicion arising from the manner of invoicing and letterhead use was held insufficient, by itself, to sustain the allegation of clearance of goods with another's brand name.

Conclusion: The finding that the respondents had not cleared the goods with the brand name of third parties was upheld, and the duty demand and penalties were not sustained.

---