Brand name exemption under Notification No. 6/2002 upheld where evidence did not show use of another person's trade name.

Exemption under Notification No. 6/2002 depended on whether cement was cleared with another person's brand name or trade name. The assessee produced evidence of registration and prior use of the RAMCO brand, while the department failed to prove with proper evidence that RAMCO belonged to another person. The factual basis relied on by the Commissioner was found insufficient, and the cited precedent was distinguished because the markings there clearly indicated a connection with another company. The denial of exemption was therefore unsustainable, and the duty demand, interest and penalty were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under Notification No. 6/2002 despite printing the words "RAMCO PRODUCT" on the packing material, and whether the demand of duty, interest and penalty could be sustained on the footing that the assessee had used the brand name or trade name of another person.

Analysis: The exemption was available only if the cement was not cleared with the brand name or trade name of another person. The decisive question was therefore whether "RAMCO PRODUCT" belonged to another person. The record showed that the assessee had produced evidence of registration and prior use of the RAMCO brand, while the department did not establish with proper evidence that RAMCO was the brand name of some other person. The factual basis on which the Commissioner relied was found to be insufficient, and the facts were distinguished from the cited precedent where the markings clearly indicated a connection with another company.

Conclusion: The assessee did not use the brand name of another person for the purpose of the notification, and the denial of exemption was unsustainable. The duty demand, interest and penalty were set aside.

---