Brand name under excise exemption requires a trade-identifying mark; mere collaborator or marketer references do not deny relief.

The expression "brand name" in Notification No. 175/86-C.E. covers a name or mark, including a symbol, monogram, label, signature, invented word, or writing, only where it indicates a trade connection between the goods and another person. Printed references showing that products were manufactured in collaboration with, or marketed by, other companies were treated as mere descriptive markings and not as brand identifiers. As no qualifying brand or trade name was established, the exemption could not be denied on that basis, and the benefit of the notification remained available to the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the words and markings used on the products, indicating manufacture in collaboration with and marketing by other companies, constituted a brand name or trade name so as to deny the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E.

Analysis: The expression "brand name" in the notification requires use of a name or mark such as a symbol, monogram, label, signature, invented word, or writing that indicates a connection in the course of trade between the specified goods and some other person. The markings in question were held to be mere printed references to the names of collaborating or marketing companies. They did not operate as a symbol, monogram, label, signature, invented word, or qualifying writing used as a brand identifier, and no trade connection in the relevant sense was established.

Conclusion: The markings did not amount to a brand name or trade name, and the denial of exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was unsustainable. The benefit of the notification was available to the assessee.

---