Brand name exemption on labels survives where marketer's logo is minor and manufacturer identity remains prominent.

Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was not denied merely because the labels displayed the marketing company's name or logo. Product-wise examination showed that, for most goods, the marketer's logo was absent or only minor, while the manufacturer's name and identity remained prominent. Applying comparable precedent on similar labels, the presence of another person's name or logo did not amount to use of another's brand name unless it was the dominant identifying feature. On those facts, the exemption was held available and the lower appellate orders were set aside in favour of the assessee.

---

---

Issues: Whether the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. was unavailable to the goods because the labels also displayed the name or logo of the marketing company, and whether such display constituted use of another person's brand name so as to deny exemption.

Analysis: The labels were examined product-wise. For most products, the marketing company's logo was either absent or appeared in a much smaller form, while the manufacturer's name and identity were prominently shown. The reasoning in the comparable precedent on similar labels was applied, under which mere presence of the marketer's name or logo, without it being the dominant identifying feature, did not necessarily attract the mischief of the notification. The court also accepted that the earlier decisions relied upon by the appellant covered the factual situation before it more closely than the contrary precedent.

Conclusion: The notification benefit could not be denied on the facts found, and the orders of the lower appellate authority were set aside in favour of the assessee.

---