2009 (6) TMI 299

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le under Sub-Heading 2201.11 attracting nil rate of duty. 3. The Revenue being aggrieved by the order-in-appeal has filed the present appeal. Shri Khan, ld. SDR states that the respondents are indicating on the label of the sample, which has been produced before us, that the packaged drinking water is marketed by Mother Dairy, Calcutta. Therefore, the impugned goods have to be considered as branded goods bearing the brand name of Mother Dairy, Calcutta. Consequently, according to the ld. S.D.R., the impugned goods should be classified under Sub-Heading 2201.19. He also cites the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Super Delicacies (P) Ltd. v. Commr. of C.Ex., New Delhi - 2006 (199) E.L.T. 387 (S.C.) and C.CE, Trichy v.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cision that the relief was rightly allowed by Lower Appellate Authority and consequently rejected the Department's appeal. While doing so, the Tribunal recorded as follows: "The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has observed that what is mentioned in the label is the name of the marketing agent namely, 'Mother Dairy', and it is also clearly spelt out in the label by the wordings-"marketed by Mother Dairy", and as such, these words cannot be considered as making use of a Brand Name. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also observed in the impugned order that no consumer asks for 'Mother Dairy' when he or she wants to buy Mineral Water by referring to a specific brand - 'Aquafina' or 'Kinley' or 'Bisleri'. I also find that 'Mother Da....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ies (supra) is clearly different from the present case since in the present case the impugned goods are not being manufactured under the name and style of another brand but there is only a mere indication that the goods are being marketed by Mother Dairy. The ld. SDR also cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. (supra). We find that this decision also does not support the Revenue's case as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in the said case as follows : "It is not necessary that the name or the writing must always be a brand name or a trade name in the sense that it is normally understood. The exemption is only to such parties who do not associate their products with some other person. Of....