https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104416 Notification No. 175/86-C.E. did not require the brand name or trade name to be used only on similar or identical goods. The earlier order was corrected to the extent it had overlooked a separate finding that the assessees had become owners of the brand name through common partnership in the trade name. Because the brand name belonged to the assessees themselves, its use on the goods did not trigger the bar on using the brand name of an ineligible person. The rectification was therefore allowed, but the assessees' entitlement to the exemption remained unchanged and the Revenue's challenge did not succeed. en-us Fri, 26 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:41:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104416 Notification No. 175/86-C.E. did not require the brand name or trade name to be used only on similar or identical goods. The earlier order was corrected to the extent it had overlooked a separate finding that the assessees had become owners of the brand name through common partnership in the trade name. Because the brand name belonged to the assessees themselves, its use on the goods did not trigger the bar on using the brand name of an ineligible person. The rectification was therefore allowed, but the assessees' entitlement to the exemption remained unchanged and the Revenue's challenge did not succeed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 26 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104416