Mandatory jute bag markings were not a brand name, so excise exemption remained available under the notification.

Mandatory markings on jute bags, including the buyer's name, emblem, crop year, mill name and BIS particulars, did not amount to a "brand name" because the marks were required by law and supply orders for identification and control, not as voluntary trade branding. The exemption under the excise notification was withdrawn only for goods bearing or sold under a brand name, and these markings did not indicate a commercial connection in trade or enhance the bags' market identity. The assessee therefore remained entitled to the exemption.

---

---

Issues: Whether the compulsory markings on jute bags, including the buyer's name, emblem, crop year, mill name and BIS particulars, constituted a "brand name" so as to deny exemption under the excise notification.

Analysis: The exemption regime under the relevant notification withdrew benefit only from goods bearing or sold under a brand name during the specified period. The definition of "brand name" required a name or mark used to indicate a connection in the course of trade between the product and a person using such name or mark. The markings on the jute bags were not voluntary commercial branding; they were mandated by law and by requisition and supply orders for identification, monitoring and control in the public distribution system. Such markings did not enhance the value of the bags or indicate a trade connection with the procurer or any other person. The earlier departmental circular and the Jute Commissioner's clarification also supported the view that mere printing of the purchaser's name or the manufacturer's name did not constitute branding.

Conclusion: The mandatory markings did not amount to a brand name, and the assessee remained entitled to the exemption.

---