9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 1552 - AT - Central ExciseSSI Exemption - use of brand name - period of dispute is from 01.03.2011 to 28.02.2013 - N/N. 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 as amended vide Notification No.12/2011-CE dated 01.03.2011 - HELD THAT - The dispute involved in all the present appeals stands decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S. RDB TEXTILES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX KOLKATA-IV COMMISSIONERATE 2018 (2) TMI 825 - SUPREME COURT . The Hon ble Apex Court had examined the wordings of the Notification as it stood during the disputed period and decided that the printing of the name logo and other particulars of buyer like FCI and State Governments were made by the manufacturers to comply with the requirements of Jute Control Order. The Hon ble Supreme Court further held that the markings on jute bags were under compulsion of law and meant for identification monitoring and control by Government Agencies and such markings cannot be considered as brand name. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Interpretation of Central Excise Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 regarding exemption to jute bags manufactured with brand names during the period from 01.03.2011 to 28.02.2013. Analysis: The case involved the appellants, engaged in manufacturing jute bags, claiming exemption under Central Excise Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004, which was later amended by Notification No.12/2011-CE dated 01.03.2011. The dispute arose as the jute bags were printed with buyer names like Food Corporation of India, leading the Department to conclude that they bore brand names, thus disentitling the appellants from the exemption. The authorities demanded payment of Central Excise duty without the benefit of the said Notification, along with interest and penalty. During the proceedings, both sides referred to a judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RDB Textiles Ltd. Vs. CCEx. & S.Tax, Kol.IV, where it was held that the markings on jute bags, including buyer names, were made under compulsion of law to comply with Jute Control Order, for identification and control by Government Agencies in the Public Distribution System. The Supreme Court clarified that such markings did not constitute brand names and were not intended to enhance the value of the jute bags. Therefore, the benefit of Notification No.30/2004-CE was deemed available during the disputed period. The Tribunal, following the Supreme Court's ratio, allowed the appeal, emphasizing the distinction from a previous case where brand names were affixed voluntarily to enhance product value. The Tribunal's decision was based on the mandatory nature of the markings on the jute bags, as required by the Jute Commissioner, and the absence of any intent to establish a trade connection through such markings. The appeal was thus allowed in favor of the appellants, in line with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law. This judgment clarifies the distinction between compulsory markings for regulatory compliance and voluntary brand names for commercial purposes, ensuring that manufacturers adhering to legal requirements are not penalized for actions mandated by law.
|
