https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87571 Notification No. 175/86-C.E. denied small-scale exemption only where specified goods bore the brand name or trade name of another person, meaning a mark used to indicate a trade connection. On the packages of the patent or proprietary medicines, the assessee's own product names were the dominant identifying marks, and the presence of the marketing firm's logo and name did not by itself create the disqualifying brand association. Applying the distinction between a house mark and a product mark, the exemption remained available because the goods were not branded in the sense contemplated by the notification. en-us Thu, 25 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Sep 2011 18:35:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87571 Notification No. 175/86-C.E. denied small-scale exemption only where specified goods bore the brand name or trade name of another person, meaning a mark used to indicate a trade connection. On the packages of the patent or proprietary medicines, the assessee's own product names were the dominant identifying marks, and the presence of the marketing firm's logo and name did not by itself create the disqualifying brand association. Applying the distinction between a house mark and a product mark, the exemption remained available because the goods were not branded in the sense contemplated by the notification. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 25 Sep 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=87571