The Goods and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal (GSTAT), Thane Bench, has dismissed the department’s appeals holding that merely printing the manufacturer’s corporate name and address on product packaging to comply with statutory requirements under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 (FSSAI) and the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 does not amount to the use of a “brand name” for the purposes of denying GST exemption. 

The Bench of Shri Ramesh Nair (Judicial Member) and Prallhad S. Paranjape (Technical Member)  relied on the Madras High Court’s decision in Narasus Sarathy Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. AC, GST & CE, which held that printing a corporate name to comply with FSSAI and Legal Metrology requirements constitutes a trade name for statutory compliance rather than a brand name capable of denying GST exemption.

The respondent/assessee compnay supplies fresh and frozen poultry products and had entered into a supply agreement with Yum Restaurants (India) Pvt. Ltd. for supplying frozen chicken products to Sapphire Foods India Ltd., which operates quick-service restaurants. Initially, the products were supplied with the “Godrej Tyson” and “Godrej Real Good” brand logos, and GST at 5% was paid. 

Buy Now: GST Judgements E-Compilation – June 2026

However, from 5 January 2021, the company removed the brand logos from the packaging used for institutional supplies while continuing to print only its corporate name, address and statutory particulars as required under FSSAI and Legal Metrology laws. Based on this change, it claimed exemption under Serial No. 9 of Notification No. 02/2017-CT(Rate). After the notification was amended with effect from 18 July 2022, the company continued to claim exemption on the ground that supplies to institutional consumers were not “pre-packaged and labelled” goods meant for retail sale. 

Despite this, the Department issued a show cause notice alleging wrongful availment of exemption and passed an Order-in-Original confirming a GST demand of Rs. 2,26,77,883, together with interest and a 100% penalty under Section 74. The Commissioner (Appeals) subsequently set aside the demand, prompting the Revenue to approach the GSTAT. 

The department argued that removing only the logo while retaining the company name and overall packaging style continued to establish a commercial connection with customers and therefore amounted to use of a brand name.

It further contended that the supply agreement required the supplier’s name to be printed prominently for easy identification, which allegedly served branding purposes rather than mere statutory compliance. The Department also relied on invoices displaying the company’s name and logo and argued that the assessee had failed to voluntarily relinquish its actionable claim over the brand name as required under the exemption notification. On this basis, it maintained that the invocation of Section 74 of the CGST Act was justified. 

The assessee company argued that the corporate name, address and FSSAI licence details were printed solely because such disclosures are mandatory under food safety and legal metrology laws. These statutory declarations, it submitted, cannot be treated as branding.

The company also argued that the exemption conditions relate to the goods and their packaging, not to tax invoices. Merely mentioning the corporate name on invoices does not convert otherwise unbranded goods into branded goods. It further submitted that supplies made exclusively to institutional buyers fall outside the definition of “pre-packaged and labelled” commodities intended for retail sale under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. 

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee and held that compliance with statutory labelling requirements cannot be equated with affixing a brand name for commercial purposes.

It observed that after 5 January 2021, the company had discontinued the use of the “Godrej Tyson” and “Godrej Real Good” brand logos on the packaging. The only information retained was the manufacturer’s name and address, which were required by law for traceability and consumer safety. Such mandatory declarations, the Bench held, do not create the commercial association necessary to constitute a “brand name” under the exemption notification. 

The Tribunal also rejected the Department’s argument based on invoices, observing that the exemption notification concerns the branding appearing on the goods themselves, not on tax invoices. Therefore, the presence of the company’s name or logo on invoices could not deprive the goods of their unbranded status. 

For the period after 18 July 2022, the Bench held that goods supplied exclusively to institutional consumers are excluded from the category of retail “pre-packaged and labelled” commodities under Rule 3 of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011.

The Tribunal noted that the Revenue had failed to produce sufficient material to rebut the assessee’s contention that the supplies were made solely to institutional consumers and therefore remained eligible for exemption even after the amendment to the notification. 

The Tribunal relied upon several judicial precedents, including the Supreme Court decisions in RDB Textiles v. CCE and Tarai Foods Ltd. v. CCE, which held that statutory declarations mandated by law do not amount to branding.

The Tribunal distinguished decisions such as Grasim Industries and Australian Foods India, observing that those cases involved voluntary use of brand names for commercial purposes and were therefore factually different. It further observed that Advance Ruling decisions relied upon by the Department are neither binding on the Tribunal nor capable of overriding Supreme Court precedents. 

Concluding that the company’s products were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 02/2017-CT(Rate), the Tribunal upheld the appellate order setting aside the demand. It held that the GST demand, interest and penalty under Section 74 were unsustainable and accordingly dismissed all three appeals filed by the Revenue. 

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: GST on Diagnostic Services Must First Be Decided by AAR, Not High Court: Delhi HC