Brand-name exemption and limitation: undisclosed use of another's mark defeated SSI benefit, while later demand was time-barred.

Small-scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was unavailable where goods were cleared under another person's brand name, because the brand remained with M/s. Micro Labs Ltd., no royalty was shown, and the use was not disclosed in the exemption claim; the exemption was therefore denied for the period before 26-9-1991. The duty demand for clearances after 26-9-1991 was barred by limitation because departmental officers had visited the unit on that date and acquired knowledge of the brand-name use, so subsequent demands had to be issued within six months. The penalty was upheld as not excessive in view of the undisclosed use of the brand name.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the appellants were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. while using a brand name belonging to another person; (ii) whether the demand was barred by limitation for the period after 26-9-1991; (iii) whether the penalty imposed was excessive.

Issue (i): whether the appellants were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. while using a brand name belonging to another person.

Analysis: The brand name remained owned by M/s. Micro Labs Ltd. under the lease arrangement, no royalty was shown to have been paid, and the use of the brand name was not declared by the appellants when claiming the exemption. The arrangement was treated as covering the use of another person's brand name to obtain the benefit of the notification.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. for the period prior to 26-9-1991.

Issue (ii): whether the demand was barred by limitation for the period after 26-9-1991.

Analysis: The departmental officers had visited the unit on 26-9-1991 and recorded a statement revealing the use of the brand name. From that date, knowledge was attributed to the department, and the demand for later clearances had to be issued within six months.

Conclusion: The demand for the period after 26-9-1991 was barred by limitation.

Issue (iii): whether the penalty imposed was excessive.

Analysis: In view of the undisclosed use of the brand name and the facts found, the penalty was not considered excessive.

Conclusion: The penalty was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The exemption was denied for the earlier period, the later demand was time-barred, and the penalty was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A small-scale exemption conditioned on eligibility is unavailable where the goods are cleared under the brand name of another person who is not eligible, and suppression of that material fact affects the demand only until the department acquires knowledge for limitation purposes.

---