House mark not brand name: surgical adhesive tapes escaped higher tariff classification, and the related demand also failed.

Surgical adhesive tapes marked with the logo "CM" were treated as bearing only a house mark or manufacturer identifier, not a brand name, because the drug regime required the manufacturer's name to be shown. On that basis, the goods could not be classified under the higher tariff entry for branded products, and the related duty demand failed. A separate demand based on the allegation that the goods were cleared in the name of another concern also failed, because any proceeding should have been directed against the actual manufacturer rather than the nominal consignee. The common order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether surgical adhesive tapes bearing the logo "CM" were cleared under a brand name so as to fall outside the lower tariff heading and under the higher tariff heading; (ii) Whether the demand raised on the basis that the goods were cleared in the name of another concern was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether surgical adhesive tapes bearing the logo "CM" were cleared under a brand name so as to fall outside the lower tariff heading and under the higher tariff heading.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the mark used on the tapes was a brand name or merely a house mark. The goods were manufactured under the Drug Rules and the manufacturer was required to indicate its name. The mark "CM" was treated as a logo/house mark, and the principle applied was that such use does not amount to a brand name for tariff classification purposes. On that basis, the goods could not be classified under the higher branded-goods entry.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and the demand based on branded classification was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand raised on the basis that the goods were cleared in the name of another concern was sustainable.

Analysis: The allegation was that the goods were manufactured by one concern but cleared under the name of another. The proper person to be proceeded against, if such manufacture and clearance were established, would be the actual manufacturer rather than the nominal consignee. The demand was therefore unsustainable against the concern in whose name the goods were said to have been cleared.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and the demand on this ground was also not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The duty demands failed on both grounds, and the common order was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: A mark used merely as a house mark or manufacturer identifier under the applicable drug regime does not constitute a brand name for tariff classification, and a demand must be raised against the actual manufacturer rather than a nominal consignee.

---