Food-label disclosure alone is not a brand name for tariff classification; unbranded goods fall under Heading 2001.90.

Mandatory disclosure of a manufacturer's name and address on food packaging, as required by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, does not by itself amount to use of a brand name for tariff classification. Where the label contains no insignia or brand mark, vegetable pastes cannot be treated as branded goods under Heading 2001.10 and are classifiable as unbranded goods under Heading 2001.90. The prior view in the assessee's own case was followed, and a contrary decision was distinguished because it did not consider the mandatory food-labelling requirements.

---

---

Issues: Whether vegetable pastes were classifiable under Heading 2001.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff as branded goods, or under Heading 2001.90 as unbranded goods.

Analysis: The classification had already been decided in the assessee's own case. The earlier decision held that the mere mention of the manufacturer's name and address on the label, as required by Rule 32C of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, did not amount to use of a brand name. In the absence of any insignia or brand mark on the label, the goods could not be treated as bearing a brand name for the purpose of Heading 2001.10. The contrary decision relied upon by the Revenue was found inapplicable because it did not consider the mandatory food-labeling requirements under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules.

Conclusion: The goods were not classifiable under Heading 2001.10 on the basis of the manufacturer's name alone and were liable to be classified under Heading 2001.90.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was allowed and the assessment made on the basis of Heading 2001.10 was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Mandatory disclosure of the manufacturer's name and address on food packages does not, by itself, constitute use of a brand name for tariff classification purposes.

---