CEGAT rules brand name doesn't determine manufacturer for assessable value under Central Excises Act

The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, ruled that affixing a brand name does not make the brand owner the manufacturer for the purpose of determining assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act. The Tribunal found that goods manufactured by one party but sold under another party's brand name should not be assessed at the selling price of the brand owner. The appeal by the Department was dismissed, emphasizing that the assessable value should not be based on the brand owner's selling price but on the actual manufacturing process and financial involvement.

---

---

Issues:
- Determination of value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act based on the brand name affixed to goods.
- Whether goods manufactured by one party but sold under another party's brand name should be assessed at the selling price of the brand owner.

Analysis:

The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi involved the determination of the assessable value under Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act concerning goods manufactured by one party but sold under the brand name of another party. The dispute centered around whether the goods manufactured by M/s. Mysore Lamp Works Ltd. with the brand name of M/s. Bajaj Electricals, Bombay should be assessed at the price at which they are sold to customers by M/s. Bajaj Electricals. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise contended that the assessable value should be based on the price list filed by M/s. Bajaj Electricals to their customers, as M/s. Mysore Lamp Works Ltd. affixed the brand name "Bajaj" as per their agreement. However, the Collector (Appeals) disagreed, stating that merely affixing the brand name does not make the brand owner the manufacturer as per Section 2(f) of the Act, citing a relevant decision.

The Department argued that M/s. Bajaj Electricals had outsourced the manufacturing to M/s. Mysore Lamp Works Ltd., and the goods were perceived in the market as products of M/s. Bajaj Electricals. They contended that the assessable value should consider the selling price of M/s. Bajaj Electricals to their customers. On the other hand, the respondents maintained that they manufactured the goods using their raw materials without involvement or financial support from M/s. Bajaj Electricals, emphasizing that the transaction was at arm's length. They referenced previous decisions to support their stance, highlighting that the price of M/s. Bajaj Electricals should not be the basis for determining the assessable value under Section 4.

After reviewing the submissions and records, the Tribunal concluded that affixing the brand name alone does not confer manufacturer status on the brand owner. Considering the specific plea by the respondents that the goods were not manufactured on behalf of M/s. Bajaj Electricals and the absence of raw material supply or financial involvement from them, the Tribunal held that the selling price of the brand owner cannot be the assessable value under Section 4. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Department was dismissed based on the established legal principles and precedents cited during the proceedings.

---