Brand name assignment and exemption eligibility where trademark use under agreement did not defeat the notification benefit.

Use of a brand name assigned under a deed of assignment did not, by itself, disentitle the assessees to exemption under the relevant notification. The assignment deed was treated as a valid legal arrangement permitting use of the trademark for consideration, even though ownership of the trademark had not been transferred. Relying on cited Tribunal and Supreme Court authority, the document states that lawful use of the brand name under the agreement did not defeat the exemption claim. The exemption was therefore available, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessees were disentitled to exemption merely because they used a brand name that was originally owned by another person, where the brand had been assigned for use under a deed of assignment, and whether the exemption under the relevant notification was available in such circumstances.

Analysis: The assignment deed constituted a valid legal arrangement permitting use of the trademark for consideration. Although ownership of the trademark had not been transferred, the right to use the brand name was found to be valid under the agreement. On that basis, and following the cited Tribunal and Supreme Court decisions, the use of the brand name did not by itself defeat the exemption claimed under the notification.

Conclusion: The exemption was held to be available, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---