2009 (7) TMI 647 - AT - Central Excise

Palm oil- exemption- . The respondents is engaged in packing Refined, Bleached and Deodorised (RBD) palm oil from bulk packs to retail packs. By virtue of a Note introduced in Chapter 15 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, vide Finance Act, 2003, the respondents are manufacturers of RBD Palmolein. RBD Palmolein, packed and cleared by the respondents used to be exempt from Excise Duty in terms of Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., dated 1-3-2002, as amended by Notification No. 6/2003-C.E., dated 1-3-2003. This Notification was further amended by Notification No. 37/2003-C.E., dated 30-4-2003 and the exemption granted to RBD Palmolein bearing a brand name and put up in unit containers for retail sale, was withdrawn. In the wake of this amendment, a Show Cause Notice was issued to the respondents proposing to recover the exemption availed by it on clearances of RBD Palmolein made by it during the period 1-3-2003 to 30-4-2003. Assistant Commissioner dropped the demand. Commissioner (Appeals) affirm this order. Held that- the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in his finding that the particulars tentatively held to constitute a brand name in the Show Cause Notice were actually particulars of the manufacturer/packer of a food product statutorily bound to be displayed on the package of refined oil. In the circumstances, we sustain the impugned order and reject the appeal filed by the Revenue as devoid of merit.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether RBD Palmolein packed in unit containers and cleared by the respondents is eligible for exemption from Excise Duty.
2. Whether the details on the label affixed to the container constitute a 'brand name' as per the relevant Notification.
3. Interpretation of the term 'brand name' in the context of the Notification.
4. Applicability of the judgment in CCE v. Grasim Industries to the present case.

Analysis:
1. The appeal by the Revenue challenged the exemption availed by the respondents on clearances of RBD Palmolein during a specific period. The Tribunal noted that the exemption was withdrawn for RBD Palmolein bearing a brand name and put up in unit containers for retail sale. The Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) had both ruled in favor of the respondents, leading to the current appeal.

2. The Revenue contended that the label on the containers indicated a relation between the goods and the packer, M/s. Jaya Stores, which they argued constituted a brand name. They relied on a Supreme Court judgment defining 'brand name' to support their argument.

3. The Tribunal examined the relevant Notification which defined 'brand name' as a name or mark used in relation to a product to indicate a connection in the course of trade between the product and a person. The label on the containers was analyzed, and it was found that the details pertained to the manufacturer/packer as required by law, not a brand name. The Commissioner (Appeals) had also considered a clarification from a trade meeting supporting this interpretation.

4. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from the judgment in CCE v. Grasim Industries, emphasizing that the exemption in this case hinged on not using a brand name. They highlighted that the containers did not carry a name associated with any brand of refined edible oil known for its quality. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, concluding that the details on the containers were statutory requirements for food products, not indicative of a brand name.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found no basis to interfere with the impugned order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal as lacking merit. The judgment clarified the distinction between statutory labeling requirements and the use of a brand name, ultimately upholding the exemption for the respondents.