Brand name ownership does not make the brand owner the manufacturer for excise valuation and price list approval.

Under excise valuation principles, the mere use of a customer's brand name does not by itself justify treating the brand name owner as the manufacturer. The Court held that the excise objection on that basis was untenable, and a show cause notice founded on that premise could not be sustained. The petitioner's price list was therefore entitled to approval without the brand-name objection, and the notice was quashed. Consequential relief followed, permitting clearance of goods until approval was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the excise authorities could treat the brand name owner as the manufacturer for the purpose of approving the petitioner's price list and sustaining the impugned show cause notice.

Analysis: The objection raised by the Superintendent of Central Excise that the brand name owner should be treated as the manufacturer was held to be untenable in law. The earlier decision relied upon by the Court had already negatived such a stand by the excise authorities. In that view, the show cause notice based on that premise could not survive, and the petitioner's price list was entitled to approval without raising the brand-name objection.

Conclusion: The impugned show cause notice was quashed and the respondents were directed to approve the petitioner's price list without the brand-name objection.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded, with consequential relief securing clearance of the petitioner's price list and continued clearance of goods until approval was granted.

Ratio Decidendi: For valuation under excise law, the mere fact that goods bear a customer's brand name does not justify treating the brand name owner as the manufacturer so as to reject the assessee's price list or sustain a show cause notice on that basis.

---