Brand-name exemption restriction not attracted where the assessee used its own trade mark; stay and waiver granted.

Exemption under the small-scale industry notification was not shown to be barred on the stated facts because the goods bore the appellant's own trade mark, not the trade mark or house mark of another person or the foreign collaborator. The collaboration agreement alone was insufficient to establish use of another's brand name at the prima facie stage. On that basis, the demand, penalty and fine were protected pending appeal, and unconditional waiver of recovery together with stay was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the exemption under the small-scale industry notification could be denied on the footing that the goods bore the brand name of another person, and whether the appellant had made out a case for waiver of pre-deposit and stay.

Analysis: The relevant notification denied exemption only where the manufacturer used the trade mark of another business. On the facts stated, the mark used on the goods was the appellant's own trade mark, not the trade mark or house mark of the foreign collaborator. The department's reliance on the collaboration agreement was therefore not sufficient at this stage to show use of another person's brand name. On that prima facie view, the demand, penalty, and fine warranted protection pending appeal.

Conclusion: The appellant was entitled to unconditional waiver of recovery of the demanded duty, penalty, and fine, and stay was granted.

Final Conclusion: Interim relief was granted on a prima facie finding that the brand-name bar was not attracted where the assessee used its own trade mark.

Ratio Decidendi: Exemption cannot be denied under a brand-name restriction unless the goods bear the trade mark of another person; use of the manufacturer's own trade mark does not attract the prohibition.

---