Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the name and address of the packer/manufacturer printed on the retail package of refined palmolein constituted a brand name so as to deny exemption under the relevant excise notification.
Analysis: The exemption covered goods of Chapter Heading 15.02 or 15.03 other than refined edible oils bearing a brand name and put up in unit containers for retail sale. The label on the containers showed the product description and the name and complete address of the packer, which was required to be displayed under the food packaging rules. The mere disclosure of the packer's identity, without any indication of a commercial brand associated with the product or a mark denoting trade connection in the sense contemplated by the notification, did not amount to use of a brand name. The reliance placed on the cited Supreme Court decision was held to be misplaced because the context there concerned a wider definition of brand name or trade name and a different notification.
Conclusion: The printed particulars on the packages were not a brand name, and the exemption was not deniable on that ground.
Final Conclusion: The Revenue failed to establish that the clearances were of branded refined edible oil, and the order allowing exemption was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Statutorily required disclosure of a packer's name and address on a food package does not, by itself, amount to use of a brand name unless it is used to indicate a trade connection for the product.