Product label superscription not a brand name; exemption retained where wording merely identified the assessee.

A mere superscription on a product label that identifies the manufacturer or seller does not, by itself, amount to a brand name or trade name for exemption purposes. The Court distinguished between a registered mark and the label wording "S.V.S. & SONS," which only described the assessee's name and was not the kind of mark that would deny exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-CE. As the issue was factual and the concurrent findings below were not shown to raise any substantial question of law, the Revenue's appeal failed and the exemption was maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the words and superscription used on the product label constituted a brand name or trade name so as to deny exemption under Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002.

Analysis: The authorities below concurrently found that the assessee had a registered mark consisting of the letters S, V and S in a rectangular box, but the label used during the relevant period only carried the superscription "S.V.S. & SONS", which merely described the name of the assessee. The Court noted the distinction between an actual brand name/trade name and a mere superscription on the packaging. The question raised was factual in nature and did not give rise to any substantial question of law.

Conclusion: The superscription did not constitute a brand name or trade name, and the assessee remained entitled to the exemption.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent factual findings were left undisturbed, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere superscription on a product label, which only identifies the manufacturer or seller and is distinct from a registered mark, does not by itself amount to a brand name or trade name for exemption purposes.

---