2003 (7) TMI 184 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Classification of vegetable pastes under Central Excise Tariff Heading 2001.10 based on brand name presence on packaging.

Analysis:
1. Facts of the Case: The appellants manufactured vegetable pastes like Ginger, Garlic, Green Chilly, etc., clearing them in institutional packs with and without the insignia of 'Dabur'. The dispute arose regarding the classification of these products under Heading 2001.10 or 2001.90 of the Central Excise Tariff based on the presence of the brand name 'Dabur'.

2. Appellant's Contention: The appellants argued that the institutional packages did not bear the insignia of 'Dabur'. They highlighted that as per the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, it is mandatory to mention the complete address of the manufacturer on food packaging, which they complied with by mentioning their name and address only. Therefore, they claimed that the products cleared in bulk packing should not be classified under Heading 2001.10 of the Tariff.

3. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that mentioning 'Dabur' on the packaging established a connection between the goods and Dabur India Ltd., justifying their classification under Heading 2001.10 of the Central Excise Tariff.

4. Decision: The Tribunal examined the provisions of the Central Excise Tariff and the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955. They noted that Heading 2001.10 covers preparations of vegetables put up in unit containers bearing a brand name. The Tribunal emphasized that Rule 32C of the Food Adulteration Rules mandates mentioning the manufacturer's name and address on food packaging. Since the packaging only displayed 'Dabur India Ltd.' as the manufacturer, without the insignia of 'Dabur', the Tribunal concluded that this was not sufficient to classify the goods under Heading 2001.10. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the previous order-in-appeal.

5. Legal Interpretation: The Tribunal's decision was based on a strict interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Central Excise Tariff and the Food Adulteration Rules. They clarified that merely mentioning the manufacturer's name without the brand insignia does not establish a connection between the product and the brand for the purpose of classification under Heading 2001.10. The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to specific requirements for classification under the Tariff and the necessity of clear labeling in compliance with relevant regulations.