Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *  GST registration cancellation without reasons amounts to ‘Economic Death’ of business: Supreme Court. *  No GST refund if appeal before GSTAT is filed late: Gujarat High Court. *  Mere upload of GST notice on portal not valid service, appeal limitation won’t start: Punjab & Haryana High Court. *  Taxpayer can’t be penalised for missing notices hidden under ‘Additional Notices/Orders’: Calcutta High Court allows fresh adjudication. *  State tax officer can’t issue GST SCN beyond CBIC-assigned jurisdiction: Bombay High Court stays recovery proceedings. *  Earlier 7.5% Pre-Deposit must count towards mandatory 10% for Appeal: Uttarakhand high court quashes CESTAT Order. *  Third Parties can’t challenge GST Advance Rulings merely due to financial impact: Karnataka HC *  GST SCN generated using AI tool quashed: Punjab & Haryana High Court *  Bank Attachment Quashed as Madras HC Quashes GST Order Issued Against Deceased Person *  ITC Blocking Order for Failure to Record ‘Reason to Believe’ U/R 86A Quashed: Allahabad High Court *  Govt Extends GSTAT Appeal Filing Deadline From 30 June to July 31, 2026 *  GST Demand on RWA Stayed: Allahabad High Court Questions Taxability of Electricity Distribution to Flat Owners *  CBIC Clarifies Jurisdiction After GST Registration Transfer: Earlier Proceedings Remain Valid, New Officer to Continue Action *  GST authorities’ certification not mandatory for reimbursement, but tax payment must be proven: Karnataka HC *  Contractor can’t seek gst reimbursement through writ when contract has arbitration clause: Karnataka HC *  Unsigned Order Is No Order in Law: AP HC Quashes GST Assessment Order for Want of Officer’s Signature *  Customs Can’t Levy Rs. 1.36 Crore Cost Recovery Charges Without Proof of Full-Day Officer Deployment: CESTAT  *  12% IGST Payable On Imported Dialysis Machine Parts: CESTAT *  Bombay High Court Admits Challenge to GST Limitation Extension Notifications; Grants Protection Against Coercive Recovery *  Criminal Case Can’t Run Parallel to GST Proceedings on Same Facts: Allahabad High Court *  Allahabad High Court Stays GST Detention Order; Directs Release of Vehicle and Goods on Deposit of Rs. 1.44 Lakh *  Service Tax Can’t Be Levied on Loss-Making Contracts: Gujarat High Court *  GSTN Mandates Ship-to GSTIN in e-Invoice and e-Way Bill APIs; Introduces Voluntary e-Way Bill Closure Facility from August 1, 2026 *  GST Appeal Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred When Taxpayer Was Pursuing Rectification Remedy: Telangana High Court *  Absence of E-Way Bill and Transport Documents Justifies Customs Seizure U/s 110: Gauhati HC *  Madras High Court Upholds GST Late Fee and Penalty for Non-Filing of Annual Return, Dismisses Challenge  *  GST Records, Purchase Documents Sufficient to Discharge Burden Under Customs Act: CESTAT Orders Release of 3.65 Kg Gold  *  No Sugar Cess Payable on Sugar Exported Out of India: CESTAT *  Road Construction Services Exempt and SCN Time-Barred: CESTAT Quashes Service Tax Demand Based Solely on Form 26AS  *  ITC Freeze Upheld After GST Dept Find Suppliers Were Allegedly Fake Bill-Trading Entities: Madras HC 
Subject News *  Input service benefits can’t be denied: CESTAT allows export refund despite MMTC acting as Canalising agency. *  No service tax demand without proof of service of SCN: CESTAT. *  Service tax demand quashed as dept. fails to prove service of SCN: CESTAT *  GST : Mere allegation of inadequate consideration of reply not enough to invoke writ jurisdiction: Delhi High Court *  Onerous conditions imposed for provisional release of seized imported goods shouldn’t amount to virtual denial of relief: CESTAT. *  GST SCN without alleging fraud cannot invoke sec. 74: Karnataka High Court quashes adjudication order. *  Extended Limitation Can’t Be Invoked Merely on Form 26AS Data: CESTAT *  Revenue-Sharing with Restaurants Not Taxable as Business Support Service: CESTAT *  R. 6(3) Option Can’t Be Forced on Taxpayer; CESTAT Quashes Rs. 12.36 Crore CENVAT Credit Demand *  Excise Duty | Power Consumption Alone Can’t Prove Clandestine Manufacture: Karnataka High Court *  Madras High Court Examines DGGI’s Authority to Issue GST Penalty Orders Under Section 122, Adds DGGI as Party *  Proceedings under omitted r. 96(10) can’t survive without saving clause: andhra pradesh high court quashes gst refund recovery *  Excise duty power consumption alone can’t prove clandestine manufacture: karnataka high court *  Madras high court rules GST show cause notices must disclose grounds for invoking extended limitation *  Court Can’t Direct Extension GST Return Deadlines or Waive Interest and Penalties: Karnataka High Court *  GST Notifications Can’t Go Beyond GST Council Recommendations: Madras High Court Quashes SCN on Branded Pulses *  Appeal Can’t Be Dismissed for Delay When Dept’s Own Order Mis-states Limitation Period: CESTAT *  No Evidence of KYC or Due Diligence Breach By Customs Broker: CESTAT Quashes Licence Revocation in Export Overvaluation Case *  Glucometers Are Chemical Analysis Instruments Classifiable Under Tariff Heading 9027: CESTAT *  Validity of Post-GST Service Tax Proceedings Upheld: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Challenge to S. 73 SCN *  Rectified GST Refund Applications Can’t Be Rejected as Time-Barred If Original Refund Claim Was Filed Within Limitation: Gujarat HC *  Service Tax Refund Can’t Be Denied as Time-Barred When Levy Itself Is Unconstitutional: Gujarat High Court *  Same Officer Can’t Act As Auditor & Adjudicator: Karnataka High Court *  Karnataka High Court Condones 324-Day Delay, Revives Customs Appeal in Jewellery Pilferage Case  *  Madras High Court Quashes GST Assessment Order Passed Ex Parte Despite Prior ITC Reversal; Lifts Bank Attachment *  Tobacco Process Doesn’t Amount to Manufacturing: Madras High Court Quashes Rs. 1.32 Crore Compensation Cess Demand  *  Recovery Notice Unsustainable After Voluntary Reversal of Unutilised Credit: CESTAT  *  GST | ‘System Generated’ SCN Without Officer Details Invalid: Allahabad HC  *  Electronic Records Without Statutory Certification Requirements Can’t Justify Undervaluation Allegations: CESTAT *  Madras High Court Stays GST Order, Finds Prima Facie Merit in Plea Against S. 74 Proceedings Based on S. 73 Intimation  

Comments

Publish Date: 07 Nov, 2009
Print   |    |  Comment

Brand Name for Packing Industry: - All is well that ends well

 

Brand Name for Packing Industry: - All is well that ends well

 

Prepared by: - CA. Pradeep Jain

Sukhvinder Kaur, LLB(FYIC)

 

Introduction: -

 

SSI exemption has been granted to boost the small scale industries. Exemption is granted from payment of basic excise duty and from special duty of excise on clearances of specified value of goods. The specified value as well as the limit of exemption is fixed vide Notifications which are issued from time to time. SSI exemption was granted initially vide Notification No. 175/1986-CE, dated 01.03.1986. At present the Notification in force granting SSI exemption is Notification No. 8/2003-CE, dated 01.03.03 and as amended.

 

The dispute involved: -

 

SSI Exemption is granted subject to fulfillment of certain conditions which are prescribed in Notification no. 8/2003. One of the conditions prescribed is that the SSI exemption will not be applicable to specified goods bearing a brand name or trade name of another person, irrespective of the fact whether such brand name was registered or not contained in Para 4 of the Notification. However, exceptions are also provided to this condition such as goods cleared as ‘original equipment’, goods bearing brand name or trade name of KVIC or if such goods were manufactured in factory located in rural area. The exceptions in the Notification read as follows:-

 

4. The exemption contained in this notification shall not apply to specified goods bearing a brand name or trade name, whether registered or not, of another person, except in the following cases: -

(a) ………

(b) ………

(c)…………

 

The definition of ‘brand name or trade name’ is given in Explanation to Para 5 which reads as follows:

 

Explanation.- For the purposes of this notification,-

 

(A) “brand name” or “trade name” means a brand name or a trade name, whether registered or not, that is to say, a name or a mark, such as symbol, monogram, label, signature or invented word or writing which is used in relation to such specified goods for the purpose of indicating, or so as to indicate a connection in the course of trade between such specified goods and some person using such name or mark with or without any indication of the identity of that person;

 

Thus, the Notification is denying SSI exemption to units which are manufacturing goods which have a brand name/trade name of another person. This has lead to a lot of litigation.

 

The Apex Court in the case of M/s Kohinoor Elastic Pvt. Ltd. [2005 (188) ELT 3 (SC)] held that the benefit of SSI Exemption is not available to the goods bearing a brand name/ trade name of the customer, manufactured by a SSI unit, as per the orders of the customer, for further use by the customer in the manufacture of his final product. The said unit was manufacturing elastic tape and affixing the brand name of his customer who was manufacturer of undergarments. This was done as per specific instructions of the customer.

 

Issue of the SSI manufacturers: -

 

The SSI manufacturers who are engaged in manufacture of flexible packing material like plastic bags, corrugated boxes etc, were printing/affixing the brand name of the customers whose goods are to be packed therein, were being denied the benefit of SSI exemption. The said manufacturers contended that this was not a use of brand name of another person by them.

 

It was contended that the packaging material will definitely contain the brand name of some other party as it is to be used by that other party for packing their final product. However, the SSI exemption cannot be denied merely on these grounds as this sale is not in course of normal trade and the goods are to be specifically used by the buyer booking the order. The Board has, also, interpreted the like cases in favour of the assessees.

 

Amendment of Notification No. 08/2003-CE: -

 

Several representations were made by the Trade and Industry against the stand of the Department that printing on packing material will amount to use of brand name of other person. Although it does not sound logical but the language of notification was such that it lead to such a confusing situation.  

 

The Board, ultimately, amended the Main Notification No. 8/2003-CE by Notification No. 47/2008-CE dated 1.09.08. With this amendment, exemption was granted to specified goods which were in the nature of packing materials. The relevant clause (e) of Para 4 is reproduced here under:

 

“(e) Where the specified goods are in the nature of packing materials, namely, printed cartons of paper or paper board, metal containers, HDPE woven sacks, adhesive tapes, stickers, PP caps, crown corks, metal labels.”

 

Further, the exemption granted to specified goods in the nature of packing materials was limited to clearances upto Rs 90 lakhs for the remaining part of financial year 2008-09. The relevant clause is reproduced as under:-

 

“4B Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding paragraphs, the exemption in respect of goods specified in clause (e) of paragraph 4, contained in this notification, shall be restricted to rupees ninety lakhs for the remaining part of the financial year 2008-09.”

 

The said amendment is effective from 1st of September, 2008. But this has also lead to certain problems. One of the problem was that the exemption granted only to printed cartons of paper or paper board, metal containers, HDPE woven sacks, adhesive tapes, stickers, PP caps, crown corks, metal labels. But this notification has not included the packaging material (i.e. material for primary packing) like the products of polymers units - pouches and plastic bags. The use of the word ‘namely’ had also restricted the scope of packing materials which were eligible for SSI exemption under Notification No. 8/2003- CE.

 

Again the representation was made to the Ministry of Finance. The Board has once again considered the representation of the industry and amended the basic SSI Notification 8/2003-CE (cited supra) by the Notification No. 2/2009- C.E. dated 11.02.2009 and plastic bags were added in the above list. But still some packing materials were not added to the list and the printed laminated rolls were added in the budget by Notification No. 9/2009-C.E. dated 07.07.2009.  Thus, the Board has considered the submission of Trade and Industry and amended the notification on their representation.

 

The after situation: -

 

As already stated, the amendment only brought relief to certain extent but also raised certain other problems. One such problem was handled by Board by amendment in the notification. But the other problem was raised by the department. They said that the exemption granted to specified goods in the nature of packing materials had been granted from 1st of September, 2008. This meant that the SSI exemption has been granted from 1st of September, 2008 and not from 1.03.2003 when Notification No. 8/2003- CE was made effective. Consequently, the SSI units manufacturing packing materials of the nature mentioned above have been made liable to pay duty from 1.03.2003 till 1.09.08.

 

Thus, the Demand for duty could be raised from such SSI units which had not paid duty by claiming the SSI exemption under Notification No. 08/2003-CE. This could have led to a lot of issuance of show cause notices all over the country. This is due to the fact that the entire SSI industry manufacturing packing materials was not paying the duty and was claiming exemption.

 

Section 11C Notification: -

 

This has led to a number of representations from the packing material industries all over India once again. The Board has power to issue retrospective exemption under Section 11C of Central Excise Act if there is duty on certain product and general practice of industry is such that they are not paying duty during that period.

 

Now, the Board has once again considered the representation of the industry and issued Notification No. 24/2009-CE (NT) on 21.10.09 granting Section 11C exemption to SSI units manufacturing packing materials, namely printed cartons of paper or paper board, metal containers, high density polyethylene woven sacks, adhesive tapes, stickers, pilfer proof caps, crown corks, metal labels; Plastic Bags and Printed laminated rolls. The exemption from payment of duty has been granted on the said goods manufactured by a unit where the manufacturer had affixed the specified goods with a brand name or a trade name of another person who is not eligible for grant of exemption under the relevant Notification. The exemption is granted with retrospective effect. Thus, the issue has been settled and SSI manufacturers of packing material have got the relief from the Board.

 

Before parting: -

 

Thus, the SSI units who were affixing brand name or trade name of another on the packing material, Plastic Bags and Printed laminated rolls have been finally granted relief  which was not only long awaited but was well fought by the SSI manufacturers. Also, the Board has also played a very positive role in granting the exemption to end this issue. The complete period of this issue has been very cumbersome but it is famous proverb- “All is well that ends well.”

 

********

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com