Brand name exclusion under service tax exemption does not apply where the trade mark is also registered in the assessee's name.

The exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-ST, as amended, was not denied by the brand name proviso because the trade marks Texla and Texlavision were shown by registration certificates to stand in the appellants' names as well. The exclusion applies only to taxable services provided under a brand name or trade name of another person, and it does not operate merely because the same marks are also registered in another person's name. On that basis, the appellants were held entitled to the exemption and the brand name objection failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-ST dated 01.03.2005 as amended by Notification No. 4/2007-ST dated 01.03.2007, in view of the proviso excluding taxable services provided under a brand name or trade name of another person.

Analysis: The applicable exemption was subject to a proviso denying benefit to taxable services provided under a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, of another person. The dispute turned on whether the trade marks Texla and Texlavision stood registered only in the name of one brother, as assumed in the impugned order, or also in the names of the present appellants. The certificates of registration issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks showed that both marks were registered in the names of the appellants as well.

Conclusion: The appellants were not hit by the brand name exclusion and were entitled to the exemption notification. The issue is decided in favour of the assessees.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the relevant trade mark is registered in the names of the assessee as well, the brand name exclusion in the exemption notification does not apply merely because it is also registered in the name of another person.

---