TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 1904
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... DA/1084/RGD-APP/2024-25 dated 21.03.2025 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Raigad Commissionerate. Since the issue involved in all three appeals covering the Financial Years 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23 is identical, they are taken up together for disposal by this common order. 1.2 The primary questions of law to be decided in these appeals are whether the printing of the manufacturer's corporate name and address on the packaging of unit containers to comply with statutory requirements under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 constitutes the use of a "brand name", thereby denying the exemption under Sl. No. 9 of Notification No. 02/2017- CT(R) dated 28.06.2017. Further, whether bulk suppli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s issued, and the Adjudicating Authority passed an Order-in- Original dated 02.08.2024, denying the exemption and confirming a GST demand of Rs. 2,26,77,883/-, along with interest and an equivalent penalty under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act, 2017. Upon appeal by the respondent, the Appellate Authority vide the impugned Order-in-Appeal dated 21.03.2025 set aside the Order-in-Original and dropped the demand in its entirety. 3. Grounds of Appeal 3.1 The Revenue has filed the present appeals on the ground that the removal of the logo, while retaining the company name ("Godrej Tyson") and the surrounding packaging style, still provides recognition and establishes a brand connection with the customer. 3.2 It is contended by the Revenue ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and name". 4.2 The respondent further submits that the conditions of Sl. No. 9 of the exemption notification apply qua the goods and their packaging, not qua the tax invoice. Mentioning the corporate name on invoices does not render the unbranded physical goods as branded. 4.3 For the period post 18.07.2022, it is submitted that supplies made exclusively to institutional buyers (SFIL) are exempt from retail declaration requirements under Rule 3 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, and thus do not fall under the taxable entry of "pre-packaged and labelled" goods. 4.4 The respondent contends that the issue is one of legal interpretation regarding the definition of a "brand name". There was no suppression or wilf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, packages intended for institutional consumers do not qualify as pre-packaged commodities meant for retail sale. The Revenue has not brought forth sufficient evidence or grounds to counter this legal position regarding institutional supplies. 5.5 As regard the contention of the revenue that the invoice of the goods bears the brand name, it is clear that as per the terms of the exemption it is the goods which should be affixed with the brand name. Since the goods do not bear the brand name, the condition of the notification stood satisfied, merely because the invoice bears the brand name would not render the goods as branded goods. 5.6 Both sides have placed reliance on variou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this judgment to argue that the name of a company on a package constitutes a brand name. We observe that in the case of Grasim, the assessee voluntarily used the holding company's name to establish a trade connection without any statutory compulsion. In the present case, the declaration is a legal mandate, rendering the facts distinguishable. 5.10 CCE v/s Australian Foods India (P) Ltd [2013 (287) E.L.T 385 (S.C)]. The Revenue cited this case to assert that the brand name on invoices indicates the goods are branded. However, the same judgment clarifies that invoices alone cannot be the sole basis for construing whether physical goods are branded. The conditions of the exemption entry apply to the physical goods, not the invoice. 5.11....