Brand ownership must be proved for exemption denial under Notification No. 175/86; wrapper details alone are insufficient.

Entitlement to exemption under Notification No. 175/86 for branded soaps turned on whether the brand names belonged to persons other than the appellants. The conclusion recorded was that the finding of third-party ownership was unsupported by evidence: the presence of a manufacturer, distributor or organiser on the wrappers did not by itself prove ownership of the brands, and the relied-on statements did not clearly amount to an admission by the appellants. On that material, denial of the exemption could not be sustained, and the appellants were found entitled to the benefit of the notification for the three soaps.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 in respect of the branded soaps Addax Neem Soap, Swatej Neem Soap and New Soma Beauty Soap, and whether the denial of exemption on the ground that the brand names belonged to others was justified.

Analysis: The finding that the three soaps belonged to other persons was held to be unsupported by evidence. The mere mention of a manufacturer, distributor or organiser on the wrappers did not by itself establish ownership of the brand names by those persons. The statements relied upon were also not clear enough to show an admission by the appellants that the brand names belonged to outsiders. On the material available, the denial of exemption could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The appellants were held entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86 for the three branded soaps, and the order denying the exemption was set aside.

---