Brand name exemption under Notification 175/86-C.E. denied where goods carried another person's monogram and the claimant was not the manufacturer.

Exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was unavailable where specified goods bore the brand name or monogram of a person other than the manufacturer and that person was not otherwise entitled to the notification benefit. The presence of another person's monogram on cartons and labels took the goods outside the exemption, and a dealer or marketer could not rely on its turnover for eligibility. Central excise duty demand was therefore justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was available when the goods bore the brand name or monogram of a person who was not the manufacturer and was not otherwise eligible for the benefit of the notification.

Analysis: The exemption was denied because the goods were affixed with the monogram of another person on the cartons and labels. The benefit of the notification was held to be unavailable where the specified goods carried the brand name or trade name of a person who was not eligible for the exemption. Since the alleged brand holder was only a dealer or marketer and not a manufacturer, its turnover could not be used to claim the notification benefit.

Conclusion: The exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was not available, and the demand of central excise duty stood justified.

---