Brand name exemption cannot be denied where two entities own the same mark and no outsider's brand is used.

The exemption under Notification No. 140/83 could not be denied merely because two entities owned and used the same brand name. The notification excludes goods bearing a brand or trade name of another person, and here each unit had registration of the mark Kesavardhini and was recognised as owner within its respective area of operation. As the goods did not bear a brand name belonging to another person, the statutory condition for exclusion from exemption was not met, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the exemption under Notification No. 140/83 dated 05.05.1983 was unavailable because the same brand name was owned by two different entities.

Analysis: The exemption notification excludes specified goods bearing a brand or trade name of another person. The two units used the mark Kesavardhini, each had registration of the brand name, and each was recognised as an owner for its respective area of operation. The notification did not contain a prohibition against two persons jointly or separately owning the same brand name. Since the goods did not bear a brand name belonging to another person, the condition for denial of exemption was not satisfied.

Conclusion: The exemption could not be denied on the ground that two entities owned the same brand name; the Revenue appeal failed.

---