TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 99/2007; E/200/2007; E/547-550/2008/; E/3088/2012 - Interim Order No. 36-42 / 2018 - Dated:- 16-2-2018 - SHRI S.S. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND V. PADMANABHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER K, S. RAVI SHANKAR, Sr, Mr. N. Anand And Mr. Raghavendra Hanjer, Advocate, For the Appellant Dr. J. Harish, AR, For the Respondent Per: V. PADMANABHAN The present set of appeals deal with identical issue and hence are being considered for a decisions through this common order. 2. The details of the orders under appeal are given herein below: Appeal No. Appellant Period Duty Penalties Impugned order E/199/2007 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in dealing with Articles of jewellery. With effect from 1.3.2005, excise duty was imposed, as a budgetary measure, on branded jewellery. The Notification No.4/2005 dated 1. 3.2005 (Sl. No. 14) prescribed duty at the rate of 2% on such branded jewellery. The Notification also had an Explanation inserted in it explaining the term 'brand name or trade name' appearing in the Notification. The levy of excise duty was withdrawn with effect from 1.12.2005. The CBEC has also issued two clarifications in the context of levy of excise duty on branded jewellery. These are F. No. B-1/1/2005-TRU dated 4.3.2005 and circular No.354/203/2005-TRU dated 29.122005. 3.1. The jewellers who are the appellants in the present case, have been getting je ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. vs. CCE: 1995 (75) ELT 214 (SC) and argued that in the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has explained the distinction between house mark and product mark . The Apex Court has observed that abbreviations which are in the nature of 'house mark or product mark only indicate the relationship between such marks and medicines and these are not in the nature of trade marks. b) He submitted that such abbreviated marks did not make the jewellery branded jewels and hence, no excise duty is liable on such jewels. In this connection, he also referred to the Stay Order passed by this Tribunal vide Stay Order No. 203-206/2009 dated 6.3.2009 in which prima facie view has been taken that no excise duty will be payable in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellers, they will recognise the jewellery as their own. ABC jewellers, who do not sell the jewellery under a brand name. This again is not branded Jewellery, and will not attract the tax. 6. Shri Raghavendra, learned advocate while adopting the arguments advanced by Mrs K. SB Ravi Shankar, further, relied on the case of the Tribunal in the case of BIS vs. Commissioner of Service, Chennai: 2012 (25) STR 101 (Tri-Chennai). 7. We heard Dr. J. Harish, learned AR representing Revenue He took us through the relevant Notification and its Explanation as well as the CBEC clarification dated 4.3.2005 and submitted as follows: (i) The Explanation in the Notification refers to the meaning to be given to the words 'Brand Name' or ' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 which was introduced into the statute with effect from 1.32005, the date on which the levy of excise duty was introduced on branded Jewelleries. As per the terms of this Rule, excise duty is to be paid by the person who gets the articles of jewellery produced or manufactured on his behalf on job work basis. Finally, he submitted that the impugned orders may be upheld and appeals dismissed. 8. After hearing both sides and perusal of the records, we note that the issue involved in all these cases involves the liability to Central Excise duty, during the period 1.3.2005 to 30, 11.2005, in respect of articles of jewellery on which certain marks are embossed, which are abbreviations of the names of the jewel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
