Brand name exemption and limitation in excise turn on labels on goods, not mere invoice references, with suppression rejected.

Exemption under Notification No. 185/87-C.E. remained available for absorbent cotton wool because the brand reference appeared only on invoices and delivery documents, while the labels on the goods themselves showed only the manufacturer's name and address. Use of a brand name on commercial documents, without affixation on the goods, was insufficient to deny the exemption. The extended period of limitation was also unavailable because the assessee had filed label samples with the classification list and the department had approved the classification after examining them, negating suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. The duty demand and penalty were therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether absorbent cotton wool was sold under a brand name so as to deny exemption under Notification No. 185/87-C.E.; (ii) whether the demand was barred by limitation for want of suppression of facts.

Issue (i): whether absorbent cotton wool was sold under a brand name so as to deny exemption under Notification No. 185/87-C.E.

Analysis: The exemption under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, applied to absorbent cotton wool falling under Heading 30.04 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, provided the goods were not sold under a brand name. The labels on the goods showed only the manufacturer's name and address, while the brand reference appeared, at the highest, on invoices, delivery challans and similar documents. Use of a brand name on documents, without affixation on the goods themselves, was held insufficient to attract the exclusion in the notification. The manufacturer's name on the label also did not by itself disentitle the exemption.

Conclusion: The exemption under Notification No. 185/87-C.E. was available and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the demand was barred by limitation for want of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The label samples had been filed with the classification list and the department had approved the classification after examining them. In that background, the assessee could not be said to have suppressed the relevant facts with intent to evade duty. The extended period was therefore unavailable.

Conclusion: The demand was barred by limitation and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The duty demand and penalty were set aside, and the appeal succeeded in full on both exemption and limitation grounds.

Ratio Decidendi: For exemption notifications denying benefit when goods are sold under a brand name, the brand name must be affixed to or used in relation to the goods themselves; mere use on invoices or other commercial documents is insufficient, and approved disclosure of labels negatives suppression for invoking the extended period.

---