https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759247 Exemption under the 01.03.2003 notification for specified goods could not be denied merely because mineral water bore the marks "SAFE" and "YES". The decisive requirement was that the goods must bear the brand name or trade name of another person, and once the assessee asserted ownership, the burden shifted to the Revenue to prove otherwise. On the material discussed, no evidence established that "SAFE" belonged to another person, and the "YES" clearances also did not show use of another's brand on the available record. The duty demand therefore could not stand, and the connected interest and penalties fell with it. en-us Wed, 25 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Sep 2024 10:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759247 Exemption under the 01.03.2003 notification for specified goods could not be denied merely because mineral water bore the marks "SAFE" and "YES". The decisive requirement was that the goods must bear the brand name or trade name of another person, and once the assessee asserted ownership, the burden shifted to the Revenue to prove otherwise. On the material discussed, no evidence established that "SAFE" belonged to another person, and the "YES" clearances also did not show use of another's brand on the available record. The duty demand therefore could not stand, and the connected interest and penalties fell with it. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 25 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759247