Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2022 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (2) TMI 304 - AT - Central ExciseBenefit of exemption from excise duty - benefit of N/N. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 as per Sl. No. 200 - manufacture of gold coins bearing a brand name of others - Department opined that the appellant manufactured gold coins bearing a brand name of others and thus gold manufactured by them attract 1% duty in terms of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 as per Sl. No. 200 - Department confirmed the duty only on the premise that the appellants have manufactured branded jewellery - HELD THAT:- What the adjudicating authority has lost sight of is the fact that though the appellants have inscribed/embossed the name of the customers as well as Govt. of Tamil Nadu and Chettinad Cements Corporation Pvt. Ltd., it could not be said to be a “brand‟ used in connection of trade and commerce engaged by the person. It is not the case of the department that either of the customers of the appellant is engaged in the trade and gold coins bearing their brand. Therefore, the very concept of branding goods is not appreciated in a legal and proper manner. Admittedly, inscribed or embossed on the gold coins manufactured by the appellants have their customers is certain identification with the respective customers who have got the gold coins manufactured for distribution only and not for use as a merchandise. As long as the customers of the appellants are not engaged in the trade/commerce/business, inscription on the gold coins cannot said to have in connection in the course of trade with the product manufacture. As long as the goods are not sold by the customers of the appellant in the brand name which they are manufactured, the same cannot be held bearing brand name making them dutiable. Therefore, as the appellants have not manufactured branded jewellery, the exemption contained in the said notification is applicable to them and the impugned order is not legally sustainable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|