Brand name exemption for refurbished monitors was upheld where an old casing inscription was only for identification, not affixation.

Exemption under Notification No. 8/98-C.E. could not be denied merely because the word "Zenith" appeared on the outer covering of computer monitors. The record showed that the manufacturers had used old and defective casings sourced from the market in assembling refurbished monitors, and the invoices described the goods accordingly. On these facts, the inscription was treated as identification only, not as a brand name affixed by the manufacturers themselves. Since the brand name was not affixed by the appellants, the goods were not manufactured under another person's brand name, and the notification benefit was preserved.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 8/98-C.E. dated 02-06-1998 could be denied on the ground that the word "Zenith" appeared on the outer covering of the computer monitors, although the appellants had used old and defective casings already bearing that inscription and had not affixed the brand name themselves.

Analysis: The exemption was denied solely because the word "Zenith" appeared on the outer surface of the monitors. The materials on record showed that the appellants had procured old and defective casings from the market and used them in manufacturing the monitors. The invoices also described the goods as refurbished and assembled monitors, indicating manufacture from old and serviceable parts. On these facts, the appearance of the word "Zenith" was only for identification and not as a brand name affixed by the appellants. Since the brand name was not affixed by the appellants themselves, the goods could not be treated as manufactured under the brand name of another person so as to deny the notification benefit.

Conclusion: The denial of exemption was unsustainable and the appellants remained entitled to the benefit of the notification.

---