https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47406 An exemption notification excluding specified goods bearing another person's brand name or trade name was construed strictly, so no implied exception could be read for job-work, captive-consumption, customer-order, or non-market-sale goods. Explanation IX did not narrow Clause 4, because use of the brand name to indicate a connection with the customer still fell within the exclusion. Trade mark law was held irrelevant to construing the notification. The assessee was therefore not entitled to the exemption, and the Tribunal's contrary view was overruled; the merits decision was noted as contingent on the outcome of a Constitution Bench reference concerning the binding effect of a Board circular. en-us Thu, 04 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 20 Sep 2025 13:08:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47406 An exemption notification excluding specified goods bearing another person's brand name or trade name was construed strictly, so no implied exception could be read for job-work, captive-consumption, customer-order, or non-market-sale goods. Explanation IX did not narrow Clause 4, because use of the brand name to indicate a connection with the customer still fell within the exclusion. Trade mark law was held irrelevant to construing the notification. The assessee was therefore not entitled to the exemption, and the Tribunal's contrary view was overruled; the merits decision was noted as contingent on the outcome of a Constitution Bench reference concerning the binding effect of a Board circular. Case-Laws Central Excise Thu, 04 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=47406