Brand name use on cement packets denied concessional excise exemption where superscription showed trade connection with another company.

The superscription "A Subsidiary of Grasim Industries Ltd." on cement packets was treated as a brand name or trade name of another person because it was used to attract buyer attention and indicate a trade connection with Grasim Industries Ltd., rather than to satisfy any legal requirement. The analysis followed an earlier Supreme Court ruling on the same wording for an earlier period, and the assessee's explanation did not displace that factual and legal conclusion. On that basis, the concessional benefit under Notification No. 5/99-C.E. and Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. was unavailable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the superscription "A Subsidiary of Grasim Industries Ltd." on the cement packets constituted a brand name or trade name of another person so as to disentitle the assessee from the benefit of Notification No. 5/99-C.E. dated 28-2-99 and Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. dated 1-3-2000.

Analysis: The dispute was covered by the Supreme Court's earlier ruling on an identical superscription used by the same assessee for an earlier period. The wording on the packets was not inserted to satisfy any legal requirement but was meant to be noticed by buyers and to indicate a connection in trade between the cement and Grasim Industries Ltd. The assessee's own explanation did not displace the earlier factual and legal conclusion that the words were used with the requisite trade connection.

Conclusion: The superscription constituted a brand name or trade name of another person and the assessee was not entitled to the concessional benefit under the notifications.

---