Brand name exemption not denied where technical collaboration reference did not amount to use of another's trade name.

Prominent use of a manufacturer's own mark on goods and packing, together with its name and address, did not amount to affixing another person's brand name merely because the product also referred to technical collaboration and a licence from ITL. The reference was treated as indicating technical know-how and association with a collaborator, not as use of ITL's trade name for exemption purposes. On that basis, the condition for denying benefit under Notification No. 1/93 was not met, and the exemption remained available.

---

---

Issues: Whether the use of the words indicating technical collaboration and licence from ITL on the goods and packing amounted to affixing the brand name or trade name of another person so as to deny the benefit of Notification No. 1/93.

Analysis: The respondents prominently used their own mark "SARAT" on the product and packing, along with their name and address. The expressions referring to ITL were held to convey only that technical know-how had been obtained from Instrument Techniques Pvt. Ltd. and that the product was associated with a technical licence or group reference, not that the goods were manufactured under the brand name of ITL. The factual situation was treated as akin to cases where a collaborator's name or technical association did not amount to use of another person's brand name for the purposes of the exemption notification.

Conclusion: The use of the ITL reference did not attract the mischief of the notification so as to deny the exemption; the benefit of Notification No. 1/93 remained available to the respondents.

Final Conclusion: The exemption denial was not justified, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---