Brand name exemption hinges on proof of third-party ownership; mere use of general names does not defeat relief.

Exemption under Notification No. 8/2000-C.E. is denied only if the specified goods bear the brand name or trade name of another person. To disqualify the assessee, the Revenue had to prove with supporting material that the mark belonged to someone else. On the facts noted, the Department identified no such person and produced no evidence showing attribution of the names to another trader in the ordinary course of trade. Mere use of general names, without proof of third-party ownership, was insufficient to exclude the exemption, and the assessee remained entitled to it.

---

---

Issues: Whether the goods cleared by the assessee bore the brand name or trade name of another person so as to deny the benefit of Notification No. 8/2000-C.E. dated 1-3-2000.

Analysis: The exemption under Notification No. 8/2000-C.E. is unavailable only when the specified goods bear the brand name or trade name of another person. Denial of the exemption therefore required the Revenue to establish, with supporting material, that the mark used on the goods belonged to someone else. On the facts found, the Department did not identify any such person and did not adduce evidence to attribute the names to another trader in the normal course of trade. In the absence of proof of ownership by another person, the mere use of general names could not by itself disentitle the assessee from the exemption.

Conclusion: The goods were not shown to bear the brand name or trade name of another person, and the assessee remained entitled to the exemption.

---