Brand name classification turns on trade connection, and a simple geometric label design was not enough to treat the goods as branded.

A mere geometric design on a product label, without any mark, symbol or feature showing a trade connection with the manufacturer, does not constitute a brand name for classification purposes. On that basis, the goods were treated as unbranded and classified under CET sub-heading 3003.20 rather than 3003.10. The denial of Modvat credit was also upheld because the classification objection failed and the appeal was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the products bore a brand name so as to fall under CET sub-heading 3003.10, instead of CET sub-heading 3003.20, and whether the denial of Modvat credit was sustainable.

Analysis: The labels on the disputed goods contained only a right-angle triangle in a different colour, without any distinguishing mark, symbol, or other feature showing a connection in the course of trade between the goods and the manufacturer. The triangle by itself was not accepted as a brand name. The earlier classification order relied upon by the appellant was distinguishable because the word "Addis" had been superimposed in capital letters in a special triangular design, which was absent in the present products.

Conclusion: The goods were not branded goods and were correctly classified under CET sub-heading 3003.20. The denial of Modvat credit was upheld and the appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A mere geometric design on a label, without any mark or indication establishing a trade connection with the manufacturer, does not constitute a brand name for classification purposes.

---