Valid assignment of a brand name supports exemption benefit when the mark's identity is established beyond ambiguity.

A genuine assignment deed established that the brand name "Mascot" had been validly assigned to the appellants, despite the deed identifying the mark by number rather than by name. The record, including the trade mark certificate, confirmed that the number corresponded to the same brand, so the assignment was treated as covering the disputed mark. The appellants were therefore entitled to the concessional duty exemption attached to the brand, and denial of the exemption was not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of duty under the exemption notifications despite using the brand name 'Mascot', on the ground that the brand name had been validly assigned to them.

Analysis: The assignment deed dated 2-9-98 was found to be genuine and duly executed. The only objection was that the deed mentioned the brand name by number and not by name, but the record included the original trade mark certificate showing that the brand name 'Mascot' corresponded to the same number, 343059. On that basis, the assignment was held to relate to the very brand name in question, and the appellants were treated as valid assignees entitled to use it.

Conclusion: The benefit of the exemption notifications could not be denied to the appellants, and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The orders denying concessional duty relief were set aside and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: A valid assignee of a brand name is entitled to claim the exemption benefit attached to that brand, and the benefit cannot be denied merely because the assignment deed identifies the mark by number when the record establishes the identity of the mark beyond ambiguity.

---