The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a unique connection between the product and the manufacturer to qualify as a brand name, and the distinction between branded and unbranded unit containers under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.

ORDER

1. The question in these appeals is whether "french fries" should be classified under Sub-

Heading 2001.10 or 2001.90 of Chapter 20 of the a Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The two entries read as follows:

"Heading Sub- Heading Description of goods Rate of duty

No. No.

(1) (2) (3) (4)

20.0.1 Preparations of vegetables,

fruit, nuts or other parts of

plants, including jams, fruit

jellies, marmalades, fruit or

nut puree and fruit or nut

pastes, fruit juices and

vegetable juices, whether

or not containing added

sugar or other sweetening

matter

2001.10 -Put up in unit containers

and bearing a brand name 8%

2001.90 -Others Nil" 2.

The appellant manufactures "french fries" and sells the same sometimes under the brand name "Inland Valley" and sometimes without any such name. Those packets of "french fries" which bear the name of "Inland Valley" are cleared by the appellant under TSH 2001.10 and the relevant excise duty is paid thereon. Those packets which do not contain the name d "Inland Valley" are cleared under TSH 2001.90 and no excise duty is paid.

3. The Department was of the view that the second lot of goods should also have been cleared by the appellant under TSH 2001.10. A show-cause notice was issued to the appellant seeking to levy duty which was allegedly short-levied. The demand was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise. The Commissioner, however, reversed the finding of the e Assistant Commissioner and held that the packets of the "french fries" which did not contain the words "Inland Valley" were assessable under TSH 2001.90 and not under TSH 2001.10. The demand raised was accordingly quashed. Being aggrieved the Department preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Commissioner was wrong and held that the second type of packing was very similar to the first f type and, therefore, was also classifiable under TSH 2001.10.

4. The difference between the two competing sub-headings lies in the characteristics contained in TSH 2001.10 namely that the preparation described in TSH 2001.10 must be put in unit containers and secondly must bear a brand name. The words "brand name" have been defined for the purposes of Chapter 20 where these entries occur as follows:

"4. In this chapter, 'brand name' means a brand name, whether registered or not, that is to say, a name or a mark, such as a symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented words or any writing which is used in relation to a product, for the purpose of indicating, or so as to indicate, a connection in the course of trade between the product and some person using such name or mark with or without any indication of the identity of that person.

" 5. The Assistant Collector was of the view that the phrase "new improved quick frozen french fries" showed a connection between the appellant and the product. The Tribunal was of the view that the second type of packets tallied with the first type of packets and, therefore, upheld the Assistant Commissioner's order.

6. Before us, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has relied upon the decision of this Court in Astra Pharmaceuticals (P) Ltd. v. CCEI to contend that both Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal were wrong in holding that the second type of packets contained a brand name. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, however, submitted that the definition of brand name would include the name of the manufacturer which admittedly was printed on both kinds of packets.

7. The words brand name connotes such a mark, symbol, design or name which is unique to the particular manufacturer which when used on a particular product would establish a connection between the product and the manufacturer.

8. The phrase "new improved quick frozen french fries" is not a phrase which is unique nor does it indicate a relation with the appellant. It merely describes the contents of the packet. The phrase "french fries" is in fa