Brand name disqualification under exemption notification fails where ownership by another concern is not proved.

Use of a brand name or logo does not disqualify an assessee from Notification No. 175/86-C.E. unless the mark is shown to belong to another concern. The material indicated that the appellant had used the mark in a different style before the sales company came into existence, and the logo was later altered and used by both entities. Common shareholding and business relationship, by themselves, were insufficient to prove ownership of the brand name by the sales company. The evidence did not establish use of another person's brand name, so the appellant remained eligible for the notification benefit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant was disqualified from the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. on the ground that the brand name or logo used on the goods belonged to another concern.

Analysis: The relevant material showed that the appellant had been using the mark in a different style before the sales company came into existence, and that the logo was later changed and used by both concerns. The relationship between the two companies and the common shareholding did not, by itself, establish that the sales company owned the brand name. The evidence was insufficient to show that the appellant was using a brand name belonging to another person so as to attract the disqualification under the notification.

Conclusion: The appellant was not disqualified and was entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E.

---