Brand name exemption under Notification No. 1/93 depends on the brand owner's overall eligibility, with Revenue bearing the burden of proof.

Exemption under Notification No. 1/93 turns on whether the brand name on the specified goods belongs to another person who is ineligible for the exemption. The relevant inquiry is not limited to the particular branded goods, but extends to the brand owner's eligibility by reference to all goods manufactured by that person under the notification. If the Revenue alleges ineligibility, it must prove that fact. The Commissioner had not examined the issue on the correct basis, so the order was set aside and the matter remitted for fresh determination of the brand owner's eligibility and the appellants' duty liability.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 1/93 when the aerated waters manufactured by them bore the brand name of another person, and whether the eligibility of the brand owner to the exemption had to be examined on the basis of all goods manufactured by that person.

Analysis: For applying para 4 of Notification No. 1/93, the material question was whether the brand name affixed on the specified goods belonged to another person who was not eligible for the exemption. The relevant inquiry was not confined to the particular goods bearing the brand, but to the eligibility of the brand owner under the notification with reference to the goods manufactured by that person. If the Revenue asserted ineligibility of the brand owner, the burden lay on it to establish that fact. The Commissioner had not examined that question on the correct footing.

Conclusion: The matter required fresh consideration, and the impugned order was set aside with a remand for de novo decision on the brand owner's eligibility and the appellants' duty liability.

---