https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2679 The superscription "A Subsidiary of Grasim Industries Ltd." on cement packets was treated as a brand name or trade name of another person because it was used to attract buyer attention and indicate a trade connection with Grasim Industries Ltd., rather than to satisfy any legal requirement. The analysis followed an earlier Supreme Court ruling on the same wording for an earlier period, and the assessee's explanation did not displace that factual and legal conclusion. On that basis, the concessional benefit under Notification No. 5/99-C.E. and Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. was unavailable. en-us Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:56:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2679 The superscription "A Subsidiary of Grasim Industries Ltd." on cement packets was treated as a brand name or trade name of another person because it was used to attract buyer attention and indicate a trade connection with Grasim Industries Ltd., rather than to satisfy any legal requirement. The analysis followed an earlier Supreme Court ruling on the same wording for an earlier period, and the assessee's explanation did not displace that factual and legal conclusion. On that basis, the concessional benefit under Notification No. 5/99-C.E. and Notification No. 6/2000-C.E. was unavailable. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=2679