Assigned trademark use did not bar concessional duty where the brand was owned by the assessee and used for different products.

Concessional duty under exemption notifications was held available where the goods carried the mark "CMS" after a valid assignment of the trademark to the assessee. The material distinction was between mere permission to use another's brand name and a deed of assignment transferring ownership; only the former would ordinarily attract the brand-name exclusion. As the mark had been assigned for a fixed period and the assessee's products were not connected with the assignor's products, the brand-name bar did not apply. The duty demand, interest and penalties were therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent was entitled to concessional rate of duty under the exemption notifications despite using the mark "CMS" on its goods after assignment of the trademark from another entity.

Analysis: The relevant notifications denied benefit where goods bore the brand name or trade name of another person. On the facts, the mark "CMS" had been assigned to the respondent by deed for a fixed period, and the respondent's products were not connected with the products of the assignor. The distinction between mere permission to use a mark and a valid assignment transferring ownership was material, and the cases relied on by Revenue were found inapplicable because they concerned use of another's brand name on similar goods without such assignment. The authority below had correctly relied on the line of decisions holding that duly assigned and owned brand names do not disqualify the assessee where the mark is used for different products.

Conclusion: The respondent was eligible for the concessional benefit and the duty demand, interest, and penalties were not sustainable.

---