Brand name use on different goods does not bar small scale exemption; confiscation fails without proof of removal or non-accountal.

Use of another appellant's brand name on different goods did not by itself bar small scale industry exemption where the brand owner manufactured distinct goods and the record did not show that the assessees produced the same goods. The exemption was therefore available and denial of it was unsustainable. Confiscation, duty demand, and penalties could not be upheld because the goods were found in the factory premises and there was no proof of removal, non-accountal, or reliable evidence of supply to a trader. On that basis, the confiscation orders, duty demands, and penalties were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were entitled to the small scale industry exemption when the brand name belonged to one appellant but was used on different goods manufactured by the other appellants; (ii) whether confiscation, duty demand, and penalties could be sustained for goods lying in the factory premises or allegedly supplied to a trader without proof of removal or proper evidence.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were entitled to the small scale industry exemption when the brand name belonged to one appellant but was used on different goods manufactured by the other appellants.

Analysis: The brand owner had surrendered the central excise licence and was manufacturing different goods from those manufactured by the other appellants. The other appellants were shown to be manufacturing distinct auto parts, and the record did not establish that they were producing the same goods as the brand owner. Where the goods manufactured by the assessee are different from the goods of the brand owner, use of the brand name of another does not by itself defeat the exemption.

Conclusion: The small scale industry exemption was available, and the denial of exemption was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether confiscation, duty demand, and penalties could be sustained for goods lying in the factory premises or allegedly supplied to a trader without proof of removal or proper evidence.

Analysis: Confiscation under the relevant rule required removal of goods or non-accountal, neither of which was established. The goods in question were found lying in the factory premises, and the allegations regarding supply to the trader were vague and unsupported by concrete evidence. In the absence of proof of clearance, seizure, confiscation, duty demand, and trader penalty could not be upheld.

Conclusion: The confiscation orders, duty demands, and penalties were illegal and liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order could not be sustained against any appellant, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Use of another's brand name on different goods does not bar small scale exemption, and confiscation or duty demand cannot be sustained absent proof of removal or non-accountal of the goods.

---