House mark on medicament packs did not amount to a brand name, preserving exemption under the central excise notification.

An inscription on retail packs that functioned as an abbreviation of the manufacturer's name was treated as a house mark, not a brand name or trade name, because it identified the manufacturer rather than a particular product source. The absence of a registered trade mark and the generic character of the medicaments supported the conclusion that the brand-name restriction in Notification No. 03/2005-CE was not attracted. The exemption therefore remained available, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the inscription "SBL WORLD CLASS HOMOEOPATHY" on the retail packs constituted a brand name or trade name so as to deny exemption under Notification No. 03/2005-CE dated 24.02.2005.

Analysis: The expression embossed on the packs was found to be an abbreviation of the assessee's name and, on the facts, a house mark used to identify the manufacturer rather than a product mark identifying the medicines. The reasoning accepted the distinction between a house mark and a brand name, holding that a house mark used across all products does not by itself establish a connection between the goods and a particular product source in the sense contemplated by the exemption notification. The absence of a registered trade mark and the generic nature of the medicaments supported the view that the notification's brand-name restriction was not attracted.

Conclusion: The inscription was not a brand name or trade name for the purposes of the notification, and the exemption was ; the Revenue's appeal failed.

---