9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by the Revenue, is whether Tomato Puree manufactured by M/s. Nestle India Ltd., is classifiable under sub-heading 2001.90 to the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) or under sub-heading 2001.10, as claimed by the Revenue. 2. We heard Shri Virag Gupta, lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not bear the brand name as such. On the other hand. Sh. B.L. Narasimhan, learned Advocate, relied upon the decision in the case of Dabur India Ltd. v. C.C.E., Ghaziabad, 2003 (158) E.L.T. 604 (T) wherein it has been held that, as per the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, the name and complete address of the manufacturer is mandatory on the packaging and the appellants are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ete address of the manufacturer on every package of food. The respondents, in compliance of this provision, have mentioned their name on the package of tomato puree manufactured and sold by them. Therefore, it cannot be claimed by the Revenue that mere mentioning of manufacturer s name on the package, amounts to using the brand name. Similarly, the product has to be given a name and such name cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not attracted to the present case inasmuch as that decision was rendered taking into account other factors like logo, the way in which the goods were described on packages, etc. Further, we also observe that in Tarai Foods case (supra), the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, were not taken into consideration which mandate the manufacturer to mention his name and address on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
