Brand name exemption turns on Revenue proof that the mark belongs to another person, defeating duty and penalties here.

Exemption under the 01.03.2003 notification for specified goods could not be denied merely because mineral water bore the marks "SAFE" and "YES". The decisive requirement was that the goods must bear the brand name or trade name of another person, and once the assessee asserted ownership, the burden shifted to the Revenue to prove otherwise. On the material discussed, no evidence established that "SAFE" belonged to another person, and the "YES" clearances also did not show use of another's brand on the available record. The duty demand therefore could not stand, and the connected interest and penalties fell with it.

---

---

Issues: Whether the exemption under the notification dated 01.03.2003 could be denied on the footing that the mineral water bore the brand names "SAFE" and "YES", and whether the consequential duty demand, interest and penalties were sustainable.

Analysis: The exemption was available to specified goods unless they bore the brand name or trade name of another person. Once the assessee asserted that the brand name was its own, the burden shifted to the Revenue to establish, by evidence, that the brand belonged to some other person. For "SAFE", the record showed a sales agreement claiming acquisition of the brand, and no material was produced to prove ownership in another person. For "YES", the clearances were made under an arrangement for supply to a particular buyer, and the branding did not establish on the available material that the mark belonged to another person so as to attract the exclusion from the notification. As the duty demand could not survive, the connected penalties also failed.

Conclusion: The exemption could not be denied on the facts proved, and the duty demand, interest and penalties were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and all the appeals were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: An exemption excluding goods bearing the brand name of another person can be denied only when the Revenue proves that the brand belongs to someone other than the assessee; absence of such proof defeats the demand and any consequential penalty.

---