Manufacturer status under packaged commodities rules turns on statutory marking, not mere trade mark ownership, for CVD valuation.

Rule 2(h) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 was construed strictly: a person is treated as a manufacturer only where the packaged commodity bears a marking indicating that it was made, produced or manufactured by that person. Mere affixture of the importer's trade mark was held insufficient, because brand ownership is not equivalent to manufacture. On that basis, the importer could not claim manufacturer status for CVD valuation purposes, and valuation under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 was not displaced by a claim for Section 4 treatment.

---

---

Issues: Whether the importer could be treated as a "manufacturer" under Rule 2(h) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 merely because the packaged goods bore its trade mark, and whether valuation of the imported goods for CVD purposes was therefore required to be made under Section 4 rather than Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Analysis: The definition of "manufacturer" in Rule 2(h) was construed strictly. The inclusionary part of the definition covers a person who puts or causes to be put a marking on the packaged commodity indicating that it was made, produced or manufactured by such person. The goods in question did not bear any such marking. Mere affixture of the appellant's trade mark was held insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement, as the definition does not equate brand ownership with manufacture. On that basis, the appellant's claim to be treated as a manufacturer for the purpose of avoiding valuation under Section 4A was rejected.

Conclusion: The importer was not a manufacturer within Rule 2(h), and the impugned order denying the appellant's claim was upheld.

---