Small scale exemption denied where branded footwear was treated as manufactured and marked by the appellants themselves.

Small scale exemption was unavailable where footwear was found to bear another entity's brand name and the evidence showed the appellants themselves manufactured and marketed the finished goods. The agreement required manufacture and delivery of completed footwear and did not specify that the brand name would be affixed by the brand owner. Search and seizure at the appellants' premises also revealed branded footwear, and no contrary evidence displaced that finding. On that basis, the document states that the appellants were treated as having affixed the brand name themselves, making Notification No. 175/86 inapplicable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to small scale exemption when the footwear bore the brand name of another entity, and whether the brand name was affixed by the appellants or by the owner of the brand name.

Analysis: The agreement showed that the appellants were to manufacture and deliver finished footwear and raise bills for the finished goods, which supported the conclusion that the goods were marketed in completed form by the appellants. There was no contractual stipulation that the brand name would be affixed by the other entity. The search and seizure also revealed footwear bearing the brand name in the appellants' premises, and the appellants produced no evidence to displace that finding.

Conclusion: The appellants were held to have manufactured the footwear and affixed the brand name themselves, so the benefit of small scale exemption under Notification No. 175/86 was not available. The appeal was rejected.

---