https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95436 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. en-us Tue, 23 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Dec 2011 13:39:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95436 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 23 Jan 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=95436