Brand-name exemption under Notification No. 1/93 denied for goods cleared under another person's trade mark; Modvat credit and penalty issues addressed.

Goods cleared under another person's brand name are outside the small-scale exemption under Notification No. 1/93, and a shifting, unsupported plea of joint ownership does not establish eligibility; the exemption was therefore unavailable. Modvat credit on inputs may still be claimed if duty-paying documents are produced and verified by the jurisdictional office within the stipulated time; credit was allowed subject to such verification. Penalty remained sustainable because the excisable goods had been removed without payment of duty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cement cleared under the brand name of another person was eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 1/93. (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to Modvat credit on inputs and whether the penalty was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether cement cleared under the brand name of another person was eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 1/93.

Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 1/93, as amended, was unavailable to goods affixed with the brand name of another person. The assessee's shifting stands regarding the brand name, the absence of support for joint ownership, and the statement that the brand was the registered trade mark of another concern showed that the plea of common ownership was an afterthought. The goods were admittedly cleared under the brand name belonging to another person.

Conclusion: The benefit of Notification No. 1/93 was rightly denied and the assessee was not entitled to the exemption.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to Modvat credit on inputs and whether the penalty was sustainable.

Analysis: Modvat credit was held to be available if the assessee produced duty-paying documents evidencing duty-paid inputs to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Divisional Office within the stipulated time. The penalty was sustained because the excisable goods had been removed without payment of duty.

Conclusion: Modvat credit was allowed subject to verification of documents, and the penalty was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The exemption claim failed, limited credit relief was preserved, and the penalty remained in force.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods cleared under a brand name belonging to another person are excluded from the small-scale exemption, and a shifting and unsupported claim of joint ownership will not defeat that exclusion.

---