Brand name exemption depends on statutory affixation; incidental presence on an imported part did not defeat eligibility.

Use of an imported component already bearing another person's brand name did not, on these facts, disqualify the appellant from the small-scale exemption under Para 7 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. The finished radio cassette recorder was marketed under the appellant's own brand name, and the presence of "Sony" on the dial was treated as incidental to the imported part rather than affixation of an ineligible brand name on the finished goods in the statutory sense. The bar under Para 7 therefore did not apply, and exemption remained available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was disentitled to the benefit of Para 7 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. on the ground that the finished goods were said to bear another person's brand name.

Analysis: The imported dial already carried the brand name "Sony", and the appellant had used that part in assembling the radio cassette recorder sold under its own brand name "Osama". The presence of "Sony" was found to be incidental to the use of the imported component and not a case where the finished goods were identified as being affixed with the brand name "Sony" in the relevant sense. The reasoning was consistent with the principle that the exemption is denied only where the manufacturer affixes, in the statutory sense, the brand name of an ineligible person on the goods; that situation was not established here.

Conclusion: The bar under Para 7 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. did not apply, and the appellant remained entitled to the exemption.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.

---