Brand name exemption requires proof of another person's ownership; mere non-ownership by the assessee is not enough.

Exemption under Notification No. 9/2003-C.E. was available for the goods because denial on the ground of brand name use required proof that the brand or trade name belonged to another person. The record did not establish that the marks on the goods were owned by any other person, and the assessee's mere lack of ownership was not enough to show that the brands necessarily belonged to someone else. The condition for excluding the goods from the notification was therefore not met, and the assessee was entitled to the exemption.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 9/2003-C.E. dated 01.03.2003 when denial of exemption was based on the allegation that the goods bore brand names of another person.

Analysis: The exemption under the notification does not apply to specified goods bearing the brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, of another person. Denial of the benefit therefore required proof that the brand names in question belonged to some other person. The record did not establish that the brand names on the goods belonged to another person, and mere absence of ownership in the assessee was insufficient to show that they necessarily belonged to someone else.

Conclusion: The condition for denying the exemption was not satisfied and the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the notification.

---