https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102416 Exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. could not be denied merely because the goods bore the appellant's registered name and address, since that alone did not establish use of another person's brand name or trade name. The disputed marking "Ultra Filter Made in India" required separate scrutiny because ownership of the mark was under challenge in pending civil proceedings and the relevant use agreements were not before the Tribunal. In such circumstances, the authority had to determine ownership and the legal right to use the mark before concluding whether the exemption was barred by use of another's brand name. en-us Fri, 12 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:52:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102416 Exemption under Notification No. 175/86-C.E. could not be denied merely because the goods bore the appellant's registered name and address, since that alone did not establish use of another person's brand name or trade name. The disputed marking "Ultra Filter Made in India" required separate scrutiny because ownership of the mark was under challenge in pending civil proceedings and the relevant use agreements were not before the Tribunal. In such circumstances, the authority had to determine ownership and the legal right to use the mark before concluding whether the exemption was barred by use of another's brand name. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 12 Apr 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=102416