https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97227 SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. and Notification No. 8/98-C.E. was not denied where the department failed to prove that the elephant logo with the letters "UAP" was another person's registered or exclusively owned brand name. The distinction between a house mark and a brand name was material: a house mark identifies the manufacturer, while a brand name identifies the product in the market. Because the medicines were sold under product names such as Somkalpa, Sundari, Sanjivani and Kafeshwari, and the rival mark was not shown to be identical or proprietary, the proviso excluding exemption did not apply. The exemption benefit therefore remained available. en-us Tue, 21 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Jan 2012 14:48:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97227 SSI exemption under Notification No. 1/93-C.E. and Notification No. 8/98-C.E. was not denied where the department failed to prove that the elephant logo with the letters "UAP" was another person's registered or exclusively owned brand name. The distinction between a house mark and a brand name was material: a house mark identifies the manufacturer, while a brand name identifies the product in the market. Because the medicines were sold under product names such as Somkalpa, Sundari, Sanjivani and Kafeshwari, and the rival mark was not shown to be identical or proprietary, the proviso excluding exemption did not apply. The exemption benefit therefore remained available. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 21 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=97227