Brand name on medicines denied exemption where labels and monograms showed trade connection with marketing firms.

Use of product names, labels and monograms on medicines was treated as use of a brand name because the mark indicated a trade connection with the marketing companies, not merely a house mark. Applying Supreme Court guidance on the scope of brand name, the combined markings fell within the definition in Notification No. 8/98-C.E. and the exemption was unavailable. The demand of duty, interest and penalty was accordingly restored against the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the monogram, label and product markings used on the medicines amounted to use of a brand name so as to deny the benefit of Notification No. 8/98-C.E. dated 02.06.1998 and sustain the demand of duty, interest and penalty.

Analysis: The goods were found to bear not merely the house name but also product names, labels and monograms of the marketing firms. A brand name, for the purpose of the notification, includes a name or mark such as a symbol, monogram or label used to indicate a connection in the course of trade between the goods and another person. Applying the Supreme Court guidance on the scope of brand name, the combined use of the names, logo and monogram showed a trade connection with the marketing companies and not a mere house mark. The exemption was therefore unavailable.

Conclusion: The markings constituted use of brand name and the demand of duty, interest and penalty was rightly restored against the assessee.

---