Assigned trademark use did not defeat exemption where the assignment remained valid and subsisting.

Exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. and Notification No. 1/93 could not be denied merely because the goods bore a registered trademark assigned to the assessee. The denial rested on the use of the mark and an allegation that the assignment for consideration was not bona fide, but the Tribunal held that the assignee was entitled to use the mark so long as the assignment subsisted. The Supreme Court found no infirmity in that view and upheld entitlement to the notifications.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. dated 01.03.1986 and Notification No. 1/93 dated 28.02.1993 when the products bore a registered trademark that had been assigned to it.

Analysis: The denial of exemption was founded solely on the use of the words "Comfit Always", said to be a registered trademark of another entity, and on the view that the assignment for consideration was not bona fide. The Tribunal held that, so long as the assignment stood, the assessee could not be denied use of the mark and was therefore entitled to the notifications. The Supreme Court found no infirmity in that view.

Conclusion: The assessee was entitled to the benefit of the notifications; the challenge to the Tribunal's order failed.

---