Brand name exemption for component parts upheld where the manufactured goods were not the branded final product.

Exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was available where the goods manufactured were component parts and not the branded final product itself. The CEGAT held that denial of exemption required the specified goods to bear another person's brand name or trade name; here, the respondents made M.S. boxes and covers for chokes, not complete chokes. Since trade notices recognised that labels and similar items bearing another's name could still qualify when they were not the branded goods themselves, the benefit could not be refused merely because the components were supplied for use in chokes. The respondents were therefore entitled to the exemption, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondents were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. despite affixing the brand name of another person on M.S. boxes and covers for chokes.

Analysis: The exemption under the notification was denied only where the specified goods themselves bore the brand name or trade name of another ineligible person. The goods manufactured by the respondents were not complete chokes but only boxes and covers supplied as component parts to the manufacturer of chokes. The trade notices clarified that labels and similar items bearing another's name/logo could still qualify for the exemption where they were not the branded goods themselves. On that reasoning, the benefit available to component manufacturers could not be withheld merely because the goods were supplied to be used in chokes.

Conclusion: The respondents were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E., and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---