Mandatory food-labelling does not create a brand name for excise classification of tomato puree.

Mere display of the manufacturer's name on tomato puree packages, where required by mandatory food-labelling rules, did not amount to use of a brand name for excise classification. The product name itself was also not a brand name, so the goods could not be treated as classifiable under sub-heading 2001.10 on that basis. Earlier Revenue decisions were distinguished because they did not address the effect of the compulsory labelling requirement under the food rules applicable to these packages.

---

---

Issues: Whether tomato puree bearing the manufacturer's name on the package could be treated as bearing a brand name for classification under sub-heading 2001.10 of the Central Excise Tariff, or whether it remained classifiable under sub-heading 2001.90.

Analysis: The package carried the product name and the manufacturer's name only because Rule 32C of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 made it mandatory to mention the name and complete address of the manufacturer on every food package. Mere compliance with this statutory labelling requirement could not be treated as use of a brand name. The product name itself was also not a brand name. The earlier decisions relied upon by the Revenue were distinguished because they did not displace the effect of the mandatory food-labelling requirement applicable to the present goods.

Conclusion: The mere mention of the manufacturer's name on the package did not amount to use of a brand name, and the goods were not classifiable under sub-heading 2001.10 on that basis.

---