Brand-name exemption available where trademark was registered in the assessee's own name before the relevant period.

Brand-name based exemption could not be denied where the trademark used on the goods was registered in the assessee's own name before the relevant period. The Tribunal noted that the earlier denial rested on the assumption that the goods bore another person's brand name, but the trademark certificate showed the mark "Cristopia" registered in the assessee's name from 27.11.1996. On that basis, use of the registered trademark was not use of another's brand name, and the exemption under Notifications No. 16/97-C.E. and 8/98-C.E. was available. The impugned order was set aside and relief followed on the exemption claim.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 16/97-C.E. dated 01.04.1997 and Notification No. 8/98-C.E. dated 02.06.1998 when the brand name used on the goods stood registered in the assessee's name before the relevant period.

Analysis: The exemption had been denied on the premise that the goods bore the brand name of another person. After remand, the Tribunal had required examination of the trademark certificate under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. The Commissioner found that the trademark "Cristopia" was registered in the assessee's name with effect from 27.11.1996. In that situation, the use of the registered trademark could not be treated as use of another's brand name, and the earlier remand directions supported grant of the exemption.

Conclusion: The denial of exemption was incorrect, and the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the notifications.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appeal was allowed, resulting in relief to the assessee on the exemption claim.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the trademark used on the goods is registered in the assessee's own name before the relevant period, the goods cannot be denied brand-name based exemption on the footing that they bear another's brand name.

---