https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187463 Exemption under Notification No. 9/2003-C.E. was available for the goods because denial on the ground of brand name use required proof that the brand or trade name belonged to another person. The record did not establish that the marks on the goods were owned by any other person, and the assessee's mere lack of ownership was not enough to show that the brands necessarily belonged to someone else. The condition for excluding the goods from the notification was therefore not met, and the assessee was entitled to the exemption. en-us Tue, 01 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 22 Oct 2016 14:46:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187463 Exemption under Notification No. 9/2003-C.E. was available for the goods because denial on the ground of brand name use required proof that the brand or trade name belonged to another person. The record did not establish that the marks on the goods were owned by any other person, and the assessee's mere lack of ownership was not enough to show that the brands necessarily belonged to someone else. The condition for excluding the goods from the notification was therefore not met, and the assessee was entitled to the exemption. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 01 Dec 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187463