ANIRUDDHA BOSE,J. - (1.) This appeal is against an order of the learned First Court passed on 24th February, declining to give interim protection to the appellants/writ petitioners. The appellants/writ petitioners are engaged in the business of production of jute products. Its supplies jute bags to different State procuring agencies, mostly for the purpose of packaging food grains. This trade is regulated by the Jute Packaging Material (Compulsory Use of Packing Commodities) Act, 1987. The Jute Commissioner usually places the order on behalf of the different State procuring agencies.
(2.) The dispute involved in this matter is on imposition duty under the Central Excise Act, 1944 treating the jute bags of the appellants as branded jute bags. Show-cause notice was issued against the appellant no. 1 for not paying excise duty while clearing their products. The appellants in their writ petition claimed exemption under notification bearing no. 30/2004-CE dated 9th July, 2004 read with the amended notification no. 12/2011-CE dated 1st March, 2011. As per these notifications, all goods other than those bearing brand names or sold under a brand name were subject to payment of excise duty. The appellants/writ petitioners are required to print certain items on the jute bags including the customers "™ names as also names of the manufacturers as per requirements of the buyers and the Jute Commissioner.
(3.) The appellants/writ petitioners had approached the learned First Court challenging the legality of the show-cause cum demand notice primarily on the ground that the products supplied by them required embossing the names or identities of the procuring agencies and printing of the names of the procuring agencies did not constitute branding. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment delivered on 13th February, 2018 in Civil Appeal No. 8534 of 2015 (M/S. RDB Textiles Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Kolkata-IV Commissionerate) had examined this very issue and held:- "18. It is obvious that, on the facts of these cases, what is in fact affixed to the jute bags is 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 the aforesaid 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 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 some person using such name or mark. "¦". In the present case, the 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. The markings are by compulsion of law only in order that Governmental authorities involved in the PDS may identify and segregate the aforesaid jute bags. This being the case, it is obvious that there is no "brand name" involved in the facts of the present cases".;