LexM/S. RDB TEXTILES LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, KOLKATA-IV COMMISSIONERATE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1007
M/S. RDB TEXTILES LTD.
v.
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX,
KOLKATA-IV COMMISSIONERATE
(Civil Appeal No. 8534 of 2015)
FEBRUARY 13, 2018
[R. F. NARIMAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Central Excise Act, 1944 – Exemption Notification no.12/
2011-CE dated 1.3.2011 and Notification no.30/2004 dated
9.7.2004 – Brand name of another unit – Jute bags manufactured
by appellants and supplied to the PSUs, various State Governments
and Governmental agencies for use in packing of foods grains sold
through the PDS – Exemption under Notification no.30/2004 dated
9.7.2004 denied on the ground that affixing the name, logo and
particulars of buyers like FCI and the State Governments amounted
to affixing on the jute bags a “brand name” – Held: In the instant
case, what was in fact affixed to the jute bags was the name of the
procurer agency in question such as the FCI, the State Government
of Punjab and so on, the crop year, the name of the jute mill
concerned, its BIS certification number and the statement that the
food grains are manufactured in India – Such markings were made
under compulsion of law, which are meant for identification,
monitoring and control by Governmental agencies involved in the
PDS – Such markings do not enhance the value of the jute bags in
any manner nor is it the intention of the appellants to so enhance
the value of jute bags, which is necessary if excise duty is to be
imposed – Markings on the jute bags are not for the purpose of
indicating a connection in the course of trade between the jute bag
and some person using such name or mark – This being the case, it
is obvious that there is no “brand name” involved in the facts of the
instant cases – Appellant was entitled to the benefit of exemption –
Jute Packaging Materials (Compulsory Use in Packing
Commodities) Act, 1987 – Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – Jute
and Jute Textiles Control Order, 2000 – Notification no.12/2011-
CE dated 1.3.2011 – Notification no.30/2004 dated 9.7.2004.
[2018] 1 S.C.R. 1007
1007
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1008
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 1 S.C.R.
Circulars/Government Orders/Notification: Circulars –
Binding effect of – Held: The circulars that are issued by the Ministry
of Finance are binding on the Department of Central Excise.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. A reading of letter dated 18.3.2011 written by
the Jute Commissioner to the Commissioner (Central Excise)
and circular dated 21.6.2011 issued by the Ministry of Finance
would show that merely because the name of an institution is
printed or embroidered on articles would not mean that they
would become branded products. A brand name, in addition to
the name or logo, would have to be given in order to attract excise
duty. Also, mere affixing of the name of a manufacturer would
not constitute a brand name. [Para 12] [1016-D-E]
2.1 A typical requisition order issued by the Directorate of
Supplies and Disposals required the emblem of the purchaser
and excise duty payable by the purchaser to be printed on the
jute bags manufactured by the appellants. [Para 13] [1016-F]
2.2 A typical supply order placed by the Jute Commissioner
also required, as a matter of law, that the purchaser’s name be
put together with the name of the manufacturer’s mill as well as
the BIS certification for purposes of identification of the jute bags
to be used in the PDS. [Para 13] [1017-A]
3. In the instant case, what was in fact affixed to the jute
bags was the name of the procurer agency in question such as
the FCI, the State Government of Punjab and so on, the crop
year, the name of the jute mill concerned, its BIS certification
number and the statement that the food grains are manufactured
in India. It is clear that all these markings have, on the pain of
penalty, to be done by the manufacturers of the jute bags, given
the Jute Control Order and the requisition orders made
thereunder. Obviously, such markings are made by compulsion
of law, which are meant for identification, monitoring and control
by Governmental agencies involved in the PDS. Neither do such
markings enhance the value of the jute bags in any manner nor is
it the intention of the appellants to so enhance the value of jute
bags, which is necessary if excise duty is to be imposed. This
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1009
flows from the expression “…for the purpose of indicating, or so
as to indicate, a connection in the course of trade between the
product and Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.