Unbranded bulk goods classification defeated duty demand and penalty where the residual branded-goods entry did not apply.

Unbranded bulk goods cleared from the factory were held not to fall under the residual tariff entry for branded goods; they were, at most, classifiable under the entry for goods not bearing a brand name. On that basis, the duty liability was nil, so no duty demand could survive and the consequential penalty also failed. The text further notes that where the goods are cleared in unbranded bulk form, the residual classification for other goods is not attracted and the absence of duty liability removes the foundation for penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the goods cleared from the factory in bulk without a brand name were classifiable under Heading 2108.99 or under Heading 2108.91. (ii) Whether the demand of duty and the consequential penalty could survive when the goods cleared from the factory were unbranded and attracted nil duty.

Issue (i): Whether the goods cleared from the factory in bulk without a brand name were classifiable under Heading 2108.99 or under Heading 2108.91.

Analysis: The relevant chapter notes treat labelling or relabelling of containers and repacking from bulk packs to retail packs as manufacture for goods covered by Chapters 19 and 21. However, the show cause notice itself recorded that the clearances from the factory were in bulk in unbranded form. Heading 2108.91 covers goods not bearing a brand name, while Heading 2108.99 covers the residual category of other goods, which in the present context meant goods bearing a brand name. Since the goods cleared from the factory did not bear any brand name, classification under Heading 2108.99 was not attracted.

Conclusion: The goods cleared from the factory were not classifiable under Heading 2108.99 and, at the most, fell under Heading 2108.91.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand of duty and the consequential penalty could survive when the goods cleared from the factory were unbranded and attracted nil duty.

Analysis: Once the goods cleared from the factory were found to be unbranded and classifiable under Heading 2108.91, the duty payable was nil. In such a situation, no duty evasion could arise and the foundation for penalty also disappeared. The demand confirmed in the impugned order therefore could not be sustained, and the Revenue's appeal seeking enhancement of penalty also became infructuous.

Conclusion: The duty demand and penalty were not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The assessee's appeal succeeded and the Revenue's appeal failed, with the impugned order set aside because the disputed goods, as cleared from the factory, were unbranded and not liable to duty under the classification adopted by the department.

Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are cleared from the factory in unbranded bulk form, they cannot be classified as branded goods under the residual tariff entry for other goods, and once the duty liability does not arise, penalty cannot be sustained.

---