COMMISSIONER, CGST & CENTRAL EXCISE v. GODREJ TYSON FOODS LIMITED
Background
The assessee supplied frozen chicken cuts to Sapphire Foods (a Yum! franchisee). From 05.01.2021 it removed the brand logos, retaining only the corporate name and address required by FSSAI and Legal Metrology law, and claimed Nil rate; after 18.07.2022 it claimed that institutional supplies are not “pre-packaged and labelled”. A Section 74 demand of Rs. 2,26,77,883 with interest and equal penalty was set aside by the Appellate Authority, and Revenue appealed for FY 2020-21 to 2022-23.
3. Final Verdict
The Tribunal held that printing the manufacturer’s name and address to comply with a statutory mandate for traceability and safety does not amount to use of a brand name, applying RDB Textiles and Tarai Foods (SC) and the Madras High Court in Narasus Sarathy Enterprises, and distinguishing Grasim Industries (voluntary use of a name to show trade connection). The exemption conditions apply to the goods and their packaging, so a brand name on invoices does not make the goods branded (Australian Foods). For the period after 18.07.2022, under Rule 3 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011, packages intended for institutional consumers are not pre-packaged commodities meant for retail sale. Advance rulings relied on by the adjudicating authority were held not binding on the Tribunal and contrary to Supreme Court law, and Sarvasidhi Agrotech (Tripura HC) was distinguished. The goods were held exempt, the demand, interest and penalty fell, and Revenue’s appeals were dismissed.
Other Case Law
Commissioner, CGST & CX, Siliguri Commissionerate v. M/s Santosh Fragrance
Inverted duty refund under Section 54(3)(ii) to an agarbatti manufacturer – whether para 3.2 of CBIC Circular 135/05/2020-GST bars the refund.
BackgroundThe respondent manufactures agarbatti (HSN 3307) taxed at 5%, using pe...
Read MorePepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & 3 Ors.
Whether issuance of a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice under Section 73(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 without prior issuance of Form GST ASMT-10 under Section 61 read with Rule 99 of CGST Rules, 2017 is legally valid and jurisdictionally competent.
BACKGROUND The Department issued a Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice under Secti...
Read MoreAndaman Timber Industries vs Commissioner of Central Excise
Whether the denial of the right to cross-examine witnesses whose statements were recorded during investigation and solely relied upon by the Adjudicating Authority while passing an excise duty demand order constitutes a serious violation of the principles
BackgroundThe assessee, a manufacturer of ply-woods and related products, sold a...
Read More