9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (6) TMI 580 - AT - Central Excise
Issues involved: Classification of products under Chapter 2 or Chapter 16 of the Central Excise Tariff, determination of brand name status on unit containers.
Classification Issue: The dispute arose regarding whether products like Cocktail Sausages, Luncheon Meat, and Corned Beef are classifiable under Chapter 2 attracting nil rate of duty or under Chapter 16 attracting 16% duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the products were classifiable under Chapter 1601.90 attracting nil rate of duty. CESTAT remanded the matter back to the Commissioner to determine the correct classification of the products. The Commissioner decided in favor of the respondents, holding that the goods were classifiable under Chapter 1601.90 and attracting nil rate of duty. Brand Name Issue: The Revenue appealed against the Commissioner's order, arguing that the products were branded and the Commissioner incorrectly applied a Supreme Court decision specific to patent medicines. The Revenue contended that the Apex Court decision in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. should have been applied, which held that even the name of the company can be considered a brand name if used in relation to the product. The respondents argued that the CESTAT order conclusively decided the brand name issue against the Revenue, and the Commissioner was not required to address it. The Tribunal's remand order dated 28-5-2004 held that the name "COSTA's" was a House Mark and not a brand name, thus attracting nil rate of duty under Chapter 1601.90. The Commissioner rightly did not delve into the brand name issue as per the remand order. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, stating that the remand proceedings were limited to determining the classification and duty demands, not the brand name issue. The Commissioner correctly followed the remand order, and the CESTAT decision on the brand name issue had attained finality. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and dismissed it accordingly.
|
