Brand name evidence on product packaging and dies sustained penalty and redemption fine for job-work toilet soaps.

Toilet soaps manufactured through job work were treated as bearing the appellant's brand name where the product packet carried "Harbo Soap" and the manufacturing dies supplied to the job worker also bore that mark. The job worker's manager confirmed that the branded dies were supplied by the brand owner, which was sufficient material evidence to reject the claim that the goods were unbranded. On that basis, the confirmation of penalty and redemption fine was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the toilet soaps manufactured through job work bore the appellant's brand name "Harbo Soap" so as to justify the confirmed penalty and redemption fine.

Analysis: The packet in which the product was marketed carried the words "Harbo Soap". It was also stated that the die supplied to the job worker bore the same words. The statement of the manager of the job worker further showed that the dies used for manufacture of branded toilet soaps were supplied by the brand name owner. On these facts, the claim that the goods did not bear the appellant's brand name could not be accepted.

Conclusion: The goods were held to bear the appellant's brand name "Harbo Soap", and the appeal was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The confirmation of penalty and redemption fine was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A product is branded where the package and manufacturing die clearly bear the brand name supplied by the assessee, and such material evidence is sufficient to reject a contrary claim.

---