Brand name exemption cannot be denied to scrap merely because it arose during manufacture of branded final goods.

Aluminium scrap generated in the manufacture of branded goods remained eligible for exemption under Notification No. 38/97-C.E. because the scrap itself did not bear another person's brand name or trade name. The notification denied benefit only where the goods themselves carried such branding, and the mere fact that the scrap arose during production of branded final products did not convert it into branded goods for exemption purposes. The lower appellate authority's view was sustained and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether aluminium scrap generated during manufacture of branded goods, though itself not bearing any brand name or trade name of another person, was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 38/97-C.E. dated 27-6-1997.

Analysis: The scrap was classified under CET sub-heading 7602.90 and was covered by the notification as specified goods. The condition in paragraph 4 of the notification denies exemption only to goods bearing the brand name or trade name of another person. Since it was not disputed that the scrap itself did not bear any such brand name or trade name, the fact that it arose during manufacture of branded final products did not justify treating it as branded goods for the purpose of denying exemption.

Conclusion: The scrap was eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 38/97-C.E. and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The order of the lower appellate authority was sustained, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption under a notification denying benefit only to goods bearing another person's brand name or trade name cannot be denied to scrap or waste merely because it arose in the course of manufacturing branded goods, if the scrap itself does not bear such brand name or trade name.

---