Brand-name exemption turns on markings on the goods themselves, not merely on cartons, for prima facie relief.

Prima facie exemption under the small-scale notification was assessed by treating the brand-name restriction as applicable to the goods themselves, not merely to the carton. Where the goods were stated to bear only the appellants' own brand name and the disputed manufacturer's mark appeared only on the carton, that carton marking was considered insufficient at the interim stage to deny exemption benefit. On that basis, the appellants were granted prima facie waiver of duty and penalty, with stay of recovery pending the appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled, on a prima facie basis, to waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in view of the applicability of the small scale exemption notification when the other manufacturer's brand name appeared only on the carton and not on the goods.

Analysis: The dispute turned on paragraph 7 of the amended exemption notification, which was considered to operate in relation to the goods themselves. On the material before the Tribunal, the goods were stated to bear only the appellants' own brand name and not the other manufacturer's brand name. The presence of the other brand name on the carton, with the letter "G" said to have been obliterated, was treated as insufficient at the interim stage to deny the exemption benefit.

Conclusion: The appellants were held entitled, prima facie, to waiver of duty and penalty and to stay of recovery pending disposal of the appeal.

Final Conclusion: Interim relief was granted because the notification was not treated, at the prima facie stage, as covering a mere carton marking where the goods themselves did not bear the disputed brand name.

Ratio Decidendi: For the purpose of prima facie exemption under the notification, the relevant brand-name restriction applied to the goods and not merely to the carton in which they were packed.

---