Brand-name based exemption can coexist with duty-paid clearances of separate goods when the categories are distinct.

Goods bearing another person's brand name fell outside Notification No. 1/93-C.E. and were liable to duty, while the assessee's own-brand goods remained eligible for exemption. The two categories were treated as distinct for duty purposes, so the assessee could clear exempt goods without duty even during the same period in which non-exempt branded goods were cleared on payment of duty. In the absence of any finding that Modvat credit had been taken on inputs used for the exempt goods, no duty could be demanded on those exempt clearances merely because the assessee also cleared other goods on duty payment.

---

---

Issues: Whether goods bearing the brand name of another person and goods bearing the assessee's own brand name could be cleared in the same period on different duty treatments, and whether exemption available for the assessee's own-brand goods required duty payment on the other category as well.

Analysis: Goods bearing the brand name of another person were held to be outside the scope of the exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. and therefore liable to duty. Those goods were treated as distinct in identity from the goods bearing the assessee's own brand name, which continued to qualify for exemption. In the absence of any finding that Modvat credit had been availed on inputs used for the exempted goods, the assessee could not be compelled to pay duty on goods otherwise eligible for exemption merely because other non-exempt goods were cleared on payment of duty.

Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed, and the assessee was permitted to clear exempt goods without payment of duty while clearing the other category on payment of duty; no Modvat credit was available for inputs used in exempted goods.

Final Conclusion: The distinction between exempt and non-exempt goods was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

---