Third-party brand-name allegations require reliable proof; unauthorised statements and purchaser confirmations were insufficient to deny exemption.

A third-party brand-name allegation must be supported by reliable evidence before exemption can be denied or duty and penalty sustained. The record did not establish that the mark "Metal Fold" belonged to another person, because the Department relied on an unauthorised statement and purchaser statements that did not prove brand ownership or displace the assessee's claim that it used its own brand. In the absence of credible proof of use of another's brand name, the appellate authority's relief in favour of the assessee was upheld and the duty demand and penalties were not restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Department had proved that the goods cleared by the assessee bore a brand name belonging to another person so as to deny the exemption and sustain the duty demand and penalty.

Analysis: The record showed a dispute about the use of the mark "Metal Fold" and the Department relied on the statement of a person who was not shown to be authorised to speak for the assessee, together with statements of purchasers. The findings recorded that the alleged admission did not establish ownership of the brand name in favour of the other firm, nor did the purchasers' statements displace the assessee's version that its own brand was being used. In the absence of reliable evidence proving use of a third-party brand name, the order of the appellate authority could not be faulted.

Conclusion: The Department failed to prove that the assessee used a brand name belonging to another person; the relief granted to the assessee was and the demand and penalties were not restored.

Final Conclusion: The departmental challenge was unsuccessful and the assessee's relief against duty and penalty survived.

Ratio Decidendi: A third-party brand-name allegation must be proved by reliable evidence; an unauthorised statement and purchaser confirmations, without proof of brand ownership, are insufficient to deny exemption or sustain penalty.

---