https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123731 For exemption notifications that deny benefit to goods bearing a brand name, the controlling test is whether the mark used on the goods is in fact the manufacturer's brand name or trade mark. Here, the registered brand mark consisted of the letters S, V and S in boxed form, while the label merely carried "S.V.S. & SONS" as the manufacturer's name. That wording did not amount to use of the registered brand mark, so it was not a brand name for the purpose of denying exemption on refined edible oils cleared in unit containers. The exemption therefore remained available. en-us Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 19 Sep 2012 17:30:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123731 For exemption notifications that deny benefit to goods bearing a brand name, the controlling test is whether the mark used on the goods is in fact the manufacturer's brand name or trade mark. Here, the registered brand mark consisted of the letters S, V and S in boxed form, while the label merely carried "S.V.S. & SONS" as the manufacturer's name. That wording did not amount to use of the registered brand mark, so it was not a brand name for the purpose of denying exemption on refined edible oils cleared in unit containers. The exemption therefore remained available. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 10 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=123731