SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.K. JAIN AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-II COMMISSIONERATE, CHENNAI - Appellant
VERSUS
AUSTRALIAN FOODS INDIA (P) LTD., CHENNAI - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2826 of 2006
Decided on : 14-1-2013.
(2005) 4 SCC 207 - Relied upon
(b) Brand name - If a final product is marked or stamped with a brand name, it is clearly a branded good - It cannot imply that one not marked by any brand is an unbranded good - A brand/ trade name must not be reduced to a label or sticker that is affixed on a good. (Paras 14, 15 and 17)
(2004) 11 SCC 801; (2004) 11 SCC 798 - Relied upon
(2005) 7 SCC 528 - Distinguished
(c) Branded goods - Stamping with trade or brand name not necessary - Scrutiny of surrounding circumstances for determination of nature of goods - Not only permissible, but necessary. (Para 19)
(d) SSI Scheme - Exemption - Specified goods - Brand name - Cookies sold from dedicated store - In branded packages and loose - Cookies not containing inscription of brand name - Continue to be branded cookies - SSI exemption not available. (Para 20)
Facts of the case:
1. The question under consideration in this appeal is whether the manufacture and sale of specified goods that do not physically bear a brand name, from branded sale outlets, would disentitle an assessee from the benefit of S.S.I. Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28th February, 1993.
2. The assessee was engaged in the manufacture and sale of cookies from branded retail outlets of "Cookie Man". The assessee had acquired this brand name from M/s Cookie Man Pvt. Ltd, Australia. The assessee was selling some of these cookies in plastic pouches/containers on which the brand name described above was printed. No brand name was affixed or inscribed on the cookies. Excise duty was duly paid, on the cookies sold in the said pouches/containers. However, on the cookies sold loosely from the counter of the same retail outlet, with plain plates and tissue paper, duty was not paid.
3. A notice was issued to the assessee by the Commissioner to show cause as to why (i) the cookies sold by the assessee at its outlets be not classified under Chapter sub-heading 1905.11 as biscuits and (ii) in view of their use of brand name "Cookie Man" on sale of cookies in plastic pouches/containers, S.S.I. exemption should not be disallowed.
4. The Commissioner held that the assessee was eligible to avail of the benefit of small scale exemption in respect of cookies sold loosely from the counter of the retail outlet. This decision was affirmed by the Tribunal.
Finding of the Court:
Tribunal erred in law. Assessee not entitled to exemption under SSI notification.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
D.K. Jain, J.:- The short question of law which arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the manufacture and sale of specified goods that do not physically bear a brand name, from branded sale outlets, would disentitle an assessee from the benefit of S.S.I. Notification No. 1/93-C.E., dated 28th February, 1993, as amended from time to time.
2. Briefly stated, the material facts giving rise to the appeal, are as follows:
Pursuant to an inspection by the officials of the enforcement Commissionerate, Chennai-II at the sales outlet of the respondent (hereinafter referred as “the assessee”), revealed that the assessee was engaged in the manufacture and sale of cookies from branded retail outlets of “Cookie Man”. The assessee had acquired this brand name from M/s Cookie Man Pvt. Ltd, Australia (which in turn acquired it from M/s Auto- bake Pvt. Ltd., Australia). The brand name used the words “Cookie Man” accompanied with a logo depicting the smiling face of a mustachioed chef. The assessee was selling some of these cookies in plastic pouches/containers on which the brand name described above was printed. No brand name was affixed or inscribed on the cookies. Excise duty was duly paid, on the cookies sold in the said pouches/containers. However, on the cookies sold loosely from the counter of the same retail outlet, with plain plates and tissue paper, duty was not paid.
3. The retail outlets did not receive any loose cookies nor did they manufacture them. They received all cookies in sealed pouches/containers. Those sold loosely were taken out of the containers and displayed for sale separately. Even though no separate register was maintained to account for the sale of the cookies sold loosely, their numbers were calculated from the number of empty pouches/containers left behind at the end of day.
4. On scrutiny of the documents recovered from the said outlet and on the basis of the statement of the Executive Director, a notice dated 20th December, 2012 was issued to the assessee by the Commissioner to show cause as to why (i) the cookies sold by the assessee at its outlets be not classified under Chapter sub-heading 1905.11 as biscuits and (ii) in view of their use of brand name “Cookie Man” on sale of cookies in plastic pouches/containers, S.S.I. exemption should not be disallowed.
5. Upon consideration of the explanation furnished by the assessee, the Commissioner inter-alia came to the conclusion (relevant for the controversy at hand) that unless the specified goods or the packaging in which these are sold, bear the brand name or the logo, prescribed S.S.I. exemption cannot be denied. Thus, the Commissioner held that since there was neither any material evidence nor averment to prove that the brand name was embossed on the cookies, the assessee was eligible to avail of the benefit of small scale exemption in respect of cookies sold loosely from the counter of the retail outlet. Being aggrieved by the order, both the Department and the assessee filed cross appeals before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench at Chennai (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal).
6. The decision of the Commissioner having been affirmed by the Tribunal, the revenue is before us in this appeal under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short “the Act”).
7. There is no dispute that the specified good is to be classified under sub-heading 1905.11 as Biscuits, manufactured with the aid of power. The controversy revolves around para 4 of S.S.I. notification No. 1/93-C.E. dated 28th February, 1993, which, in its erstwhile form, read as follows: -
“4. The exemption contained in this notification shall not apply to the specified goods where a manufacturer affixes the specified goods with a brand name or trade name (registered or not) of another person who is not eligible for the grant of exemption under this notification…”
8. The meaning of a “brand name” or “trade name” is enuncia
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.