Mandatory manufacturer identification and institutional-consumer packaging do not negate exemption for unbranded, non-retail pre-packaged goods.

Mandatory printing of a manufacturer's corporate name, address and regulatory particulars on packaging for traceability, safety and legal-metrology compliance does not by itself constitute use of a brand name. A corporate name appearing only on invoices cannot convert physically unbranded goods into branded goods, so the relevant exemption remains available. Packages supplied exclusively to institutional consumers are excluded from pre-packaged commodities intended for retail sale under Rule 3 and therefore are not taxable as pre-packaged and labelled goods under the amended entry. On these principles, the discussed tax demand, interest and penalty are described as unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether statutory printing of the manufacturer's corporate name and address on unit containers, and mention of the name on invoices, constituted use of a brand name so as to deny exemption; (ii) Whether packages supplied exclusively to institutional consumers after the amendment were taxable as pre-packaged and labelled goods.

Issue (i): Whether statutory printing of the manufacturer's corporate name and address on unit containers, and mention of the name on invoices, constituted use of a brand name so as to deny exemption.

Analysis: The specific product logos had ceased to be used on the packages. Printing the manufacturer's name, address and regulatory particulars was compulsory for traceability, safety and compliance under food-safety and legal-metrology requirements; it did not indicate a commercial connection intended to enhance the value of the goods. The exemption condition concerned the physical goods and their packaging, not the invoice. A corporate name on an invoice could not render physically unbranded goods branded.

Conclusion: Statutory declarations of the corporate name and address, and the corporate name on invoices, did not amount to affixing a brand name; the exemption was available to the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether packages supplied exclusively to institutional consumers after the amendment were taxable as pre-packaged and labelled goods.

Analysis: Rule 3 excludes packages intended for institutional consumers from the category of pre-packaged commodities meant for retail sale. The Revenue did not establish grounds to displace the position that the supplies were exclusively institutional supplies.

Conclusion: Packages intended for institutional consumers were not pre-packaged and labelled goods for the amended entry; the exemption was available to the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The exemption applied throughout the disputed periods, and the tax demand with consequential interest and penalty was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Mandatory statutory identification of a manufacturer on packaging does not constitute branding, and institutional-consumer packages excluded from retail-sale packaged-commodity requirements do not become taxable as pre-packaged and labelled goods.

---