Brand name ownership under small scale exemption required factual verification; denial was set aside and remanded for fresh adjudication.

Denial of small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86 depended on whether the brand name "CITRA" fell within the exclusion in para (7), which in turn required a clear factual finding on brand ownership. The record did not establish whose brand name it was, and the burden to show that the assessee was hit by the exclusion lay on the Revenue. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for verification of the brand name claim and fresh adjudication after giving a personal hearing.

---

---

Issues: Whether the denial of small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86 could be sustained without a clear finding on the ownership of the brand name 'CITRA', and whether the matter required remand for fresh adjudication.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the applicability of para (7) of the exemption notification, which depended on whether the brand name belonged to a small scale industrial unit entitled to the exemption. The record did not establish whose brand name 'CITRA' was if it did not belong to the claimed owner, and the issue required factual verification at the original stage. The burden to establish that the assessee was hit by para (7) lay on the Revenue.

Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for verification of the brand name claim and fresh adjudication after granting personal hearing.

Final Conclusion: The exemption dispute was not finally decided on merits and was sent back for reconsideration on the factual issue of brand ownership.

Ratio Decidendi: Where applicability of an exemption exclusion depends on brand name ownership, the Revenue must establish the factual basis for denying the exemption, and unresolved ownership requires remand for verification.

---