Brand name exemption condition applies only when the manufacturer affixes another person's mark on the goods.

Exemption under Notification No. 175/86 was denied only where the manufacturer affixed another person's brand name on the goods. The assessee's tools bore no brand name, and the pouches were purchased from outside already marked by the buyer; the assessee did not itself affix any brand name on either the tools or the pouches. On that basis, the buyer's markings on pre-printed pouches were insufficient to attract paragraph 7, so the exemption condition was not triggered and the demand was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether paragraph 7 of Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 was attracted when the brand name appeared only on pouches purchased from outside and the assessee had not affixed any brand name on the tools or on the pouches.

Analysis: The tools manufactured by the assessee did not bear any brand name. The pouches in which the tools were placed were bought from outside and already carried markings of the buyer. The exemption clause was held to apply only where the manufacturer affixes the brand name of another person on the goods in question. Since the assessee had not affixed any brand name either on the tools or on the pouches, the mere presence of the buyer's markings on the purchased pouches did not bring the case within the mischief of the notification.

Conclusion: Paragraph 7 of Notification No. 175/86 dated 1-3-1986 was not applicable, and the demand was not sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption condition denying benefit on account of another person's brand name is attracted only when the manufacturer affixes that brand name on the goods; a pre-marked container purchased from outside, without such affixation by the assessee, does not suffice.

---