Brand name ownership and exemption under Notification 175/86-C.E. corrected on rectification; assessees retained the benefit.

Notification No. 175/86-C.E. did not require the brand name or trade name to be used only on similar or identical goods. The earlier order was corrected to the extent it had overlooked a separate finding that the assessees had become owners of the brand name through common partnership in the trade name. Because the brand name belonged to the assessees themselves, its use on the goods did not trigger the bar on using the brand name of an ineligible person. The rectification was therefore allowed, but the assessees' entitlement to the exemption remained unchanged and the Revenue's challenge did not succeed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was available where the brand name used on the goods belonged to the assessees themselves, and whether there was any mistake apparent on the record warranting rectification.

Analysis: Notification No. 175/86-C.E. did not require that the brand name or trade name should be used only on similar or identical goods. However, the earlier order had also recorded a separate finding that the assessees had acquired common partnership in the trade name and had become the owners of the brand name for their products. Once the brand name belonged to the assessees, its affixation did not attract the bar in para 7 against use of the brand name of an ineligible person. In that limited sense, there was a mistake in the earlier order to be corrected, but the substantive entitlement to exemption remained unaffected.

Conclusion: The rectification application was allowed, but the assessee continued to be entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. and the Revenue's appeal remained rejected.

---