2000 (5) TMI 101 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of product under sub-headings 2001.10 and 2001.90 of the CETA; Interpretation of "brand name" definition in Chapter 20 of the CETA.

Classification of Product under Sub-headings 2001.10 and 2001.90 of the CETA:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which reversed the duty demand confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner. The dispute arose from the classification of the product, French Fries, by M/s. Tarai Foods Ltd. under two sub-headings of the CETA. The first type of packing with the brand name "Inland Valley" was classified under sub-heading 2001.10, while the second packing without the brand name was classified under sub-heading 2001.90. The Revenue contended that both types of packings should fall under sub-heading 2001.10, as the second packing also established a connection in the course of trade between the product and the manufacturer. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's argument, emphasizing that the definition of "brand name" in Chapter 20 of the CETA includes any writing indicating a connection in trade between the product and the manufacturer. The Tribunal found that the second type of packing, although missing the brand name "Inland Valley," still established a trade connection and therefore should be classified under sub-heading 2001.10.

Interpretation of "Brand Name" Definition in Chapter 20 of the CETA:
The Tribunal analyzed the definition of "brand name" provided in Chapter 20 of the CETA, which includes any writing indicating a connection in trade between the product and the manufacturer. The respondents argued that the absence of the brand name "Inland Valley" on the second packing should classify it under sub-heading 2001.90 with nil duty rate. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that the second packing, despite missing the brand name, still established a trade connection through other details and marks on the packaging. The Tribunal emphasized that the wording of sub-heading 2001.10 should be interpreted without deviation to prevent duty evasion. Referring to precedents related to medicines, the Tribunal distinguished the present case, where a clear trade connection was evident from the packaging. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and restored the duty demand confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the classification of the product under sub-heading 2001.10 of the CETA based on the presence of a trade connection established through the packaging details, even in the absence of the specific brand name "Inland Valley" on the second packing. The decision highlighted the importance of interpreting legal definitions strictly to prevent evasion and ensure accurate classification for duty purposes.