https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91318 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. en-us Wed, 06 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:11:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91318 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 06 Jan 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=91318