Brand name exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. turns on proof that goods actually bore another person's mark.

Notification No. 175/86-C.E. excludes exemption only where the specified goods bear the brand name or trade name of another person who is not eligible for the exemption. The burden is on the Revenue to prove that the goods were actually so affixed. On the facts discussed, the evidence was general and not specific to PT-81, and cross-examination of the Range Superintendent supported the assessee's case that PT-81 did not bear the expression "LMS". In the absence of direct evidence that the goods carried another person's brand name, the exclusion was not attracted and the exemption could not be denied on that basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. could be denied on the ground that the goods were affixed with the brand name of another person.

Analysis: The notification excludes exemption only where the specified goods bear the brand name or trade name of another person who is not eligible for the exemption. The burden lay on the Revenue to prove that the impugned goods were actually so affixed. The evidence relied upon by the Revenue consisted mainly of general statements referring to other products and was not specific to PT-81. The cross-examination of the Range Superintendent supported the assessee's case that PT-81 did not bear the expression "LMS". No direct evidence was produced to rebut this or to establish that the impugned goods carried another person's brand name.

Conclusion: The Revenue failed to prove that the goods were affixed with the brand name of another person, so the exclusion in paragraph 7 of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was not attracted and the exemption could not be denied on that ground.

---