Goods with Common Terms Not Exempt from GST

The subject goods sold under Stream 1 and Stream 2 were considered to bear a brand name and were deemed ineligible for GST exemption. The use of common/generic terms like 'Value', 'Daily', 'Superior', and 'Choice' on the package did not inherently indicate a brand name connection but needed to be assessed in conjunction with the branding and marketing environment. The judgments for both streams concluded that the goods were branded and therefore did not qualify for GST exemption.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the subject goods sold under Stream 1 can be considered as 'not bearing a brand name' and eligible for GST exemption.
2. Whether the subject goods sold under Stream 2 can be considered as 'not bearing a brand name' and eligible for GST exemption.
3. Whether the use of common/generic terms like 'Value', 'Daily', 'Superior', and 'Choice' on the package can be construed as a 'brand name' for GST exemption purposes.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Subject Goods Under Stream 1
Question: Whether the subject goods, proposed to be sold under Stream 1, where the package of the subject goods would merely have a declaration mentioning the name and registered address of the Applicant as the manufacturer, can be considered as 'not bearing a brand name' and eligible for exemption from GST.

Analysis:
- The applicant contends that mentioning the manufacturer's name and address as per statutory requirements does not constitute a 'brand name'.
- The relevant GST Notification exempts goods that are not put up in unit containers and do not bear a registered brand name.
- The definition of 'brand name' includes any name or mark used to indicate a connection between the goods and the person using the name or mark.
- The applicant's name "Aditya Birla Retail Limited" is a well-known brand associated with quality and trust.
- The Supreme Court decision in CCE v. Grasim Industries Ltd. states that even the name of a company can be considered a brand name if it indicates a connection in the course of trade.
- The goods sold under Stream 1 would be available only in More Stores, which are associated with the Aditya Birla brand.

Judgment: The subject goods sold under Stream 1 are considered to bear a brand name and are not eligible for GST exemption. (Answered in the negative).

Issue 2: Subject Goods Under Stream 2
Question: Whether the subject goods proposed to be sold under Stream 2, where the package of the subject goods would have a declaration mentioning the name and registered address of the manufacturer and the declaration 'Marketed by- Aditya Birla Retail Limited', can be considered as 'not bearing a brand name' and eligible for exemption from GST.

Analysis:
- The applicant argues that the declaration 'Marketed by Aditya Birla Retail Limited' does not amount to branding.
- The relevant GST Notification's definition of 'brand name' includes any name or mark indicating a connection in the course of trade.
- The name "Aditya Birla Retail Limited" and the association with More Stores create a brand identity.
- The Supreme Court in CCE v. Australian Foods India (P) Ltd. emphasized that even if a brand name does not appear on the product, the environment in which it is sold can establish it as a branded product.
- The goods under Stream 2 are sold exclusively in More Stores, reinforcing the brand connection.

Judgment: The subject goods sold under Stream 2 are considered to bear a brand name and are not eligible for GST exemption. (Answered in the negative).

Issue 3: Use of Common/Generic Terms
Question: Whether the declarations made on the package using common/generic terms like 'Value', 'Daily', 'Superior', and 'Choice' for indicating the quality of the product can be construed as a 'brand name' for GST exemption purposes.

Analysis:
- The applicant uses these terms to indicate product quality and not as a brand name.
- The GST Notification defines 'brand name' as any name or mark indicating a connection in the course of trade.
- The terms 'Value', 'Daily', 'Superior', and 'Choice' do not inherently indicate a connection to the applicant.
- However, the context in which these terms are used (i.e., in More Stores) may influence their interpretation.

Judgment: The question cannot be raised in isolation and must be considered in the context of the answers provided for Streams 1 and 2. (Refer to the answers in respect of Streams 1 and 2).

Conclusion:
- For both Streams 1 and 2, the goods are considered to bear a brand name and are not eligible for GST exemption.
- The use of common/generic terms must be evaluated in the context of the overall branding and marketing environment.

---