Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether Pizza Tomato Base was classifiable under sub-heading 2103.90, as held by the appellate authority, or under sub-heading 2103.10 on the ground that the label mentioning the manufacturer's name brought the goods within the definition of brand name in Note 8 to Chapter 21.
Analysis: The Tribunal held that the label carried the manufacturer's name only to comply with Rule 32C of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, which requires the name and complete address of the manufacturer on every food package. Since there was no separate insignia or brand mark on the label, mere mention of the manufacturer's name could not by itself convert the product into branded goods for the purpose of classification. The decision relied on the earlier view that the mandatory statutory disclosure of the manufacturer's name cannot be treated as use of a brand name. The contrary precedent was distinguished because it did not consider the mandatory labelling requirement under the food rules.
Conclusion: The goods were not liable to be treated as bearing a brand name merely because the manufacturer's name appeared on the package, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Mandatory disclosure of the manufacturer's name on food packaging, required by law, does not by itself constitute use of a brand name for excise classification.