Confectionery classification under specific tariff entry prevails where packaging shows only the producer's name, not a brand mark.

Mere printing of the producer's name on confectionery packaging does not, by itself, constitute a brand name, trade name or trade mark. Applying the earlier ruling on the same commodity, the Madras High Court held that confectionery covered by a specific entry in the TNGST schedule cannot be shifted to the residuary entry merely because the packing bears the producer's name. Classification therefore had to follow the specific confectionery entry, not the higher-rate residuary entry, and the levy based on the residuary classification was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether confectionery items bearing the producer's name, without a registered trade mark, were liable to tax at 12% under the residuary entry or at 4% under the specific entry in the TNGST schedule.

Analysis: The impugned levy proceeded on the basis that the name printed on the packing constituted a brand name and attracted the residuary entry. The Court followed the earlier decision on the same commodity and held that mere mention of the producer's name on packing materials does not amount to a brand name, trade name, or trade mark. It further held that where confectionery is covered by a specific entry, the residuary entry cannot be invoked. The classification therefore had to be made under the specific entry applicable to confectionery, and not under the higher rate residuary entry.

Conclusion: The higher tax levy was unsustainable; the petitioners were liable only to tax at 4%, and the assessment orders were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere indication of the producer's name on packaging does not constitute a brand name or trade mark, and a residuary entry cannot be applied where the goods are covered by a specific tariff entry.

---