https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117110 The exemption under Notification No. 140/83 could not be denied merely because two entities owned and used the same brand name. The notification excludes goods bearing a brand or trade name of another person, and here each unit had registration of the mark Kesavardhini and was recognised as owner within its respective area of operation. As the goods did not bear a brand name belonging to another person, the statutory condition for exclusion from exemption was not met, and the Revenue's challenge failed. en-us Fri, 23 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 20 Jun 2012 14:15:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117110 The exemption under Notification No. 140/83 could not be denied merely because two entities owned and used the same brand name. The notification excludes goods bearing a brand or trade name of another person, and here each unit had registration of the mark Kesavardhini and was recognised as owner within its respective area of operation. As the goods did not bear a brand name belonging to another person, the statutory condition for exclusion from exemption was not met, and the Revenue's challenge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 23 Sep 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=117110