TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 304X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 eng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty in terms of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 as per Sl. No. 200. A Show cause notice (SCN) dated 07.02.2019 was issued to the appellant and was confirmed by the impugned order dated 19.09.2019, wherein the learned Commissioner has confirmed the duty of ₹ 1,65,49,141/- and appropriated the amount paid towards duty and interest and imposed equal penalty under Section 11 AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ( CEA, 1944 in short). Hence this appeal. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the learned adjudicating authority has not appreciated the purported Notification No. 12/2012 and a plain reading of the same would indicate that the appellants are entitled for the exemption contained therein; symbol/marks ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh reported in 1995 (75) ELT 214 (SC) 2. Tarai Food Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-II 2006 (198) ELT 323 SC 3. Shruti Art (P) Ltd., Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai 2019 (369) ELT 986 (Tri.-Mum.) 4. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh Vs. Hemkunt Builders 2002 (141) ELT 376 (Tri.-Del.) 5. Electromhs (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore 2000 (116) ELT 265 (Tribunal) 6. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs. Kalvert Foods India Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (270) ELT 643 (S.C.) 7. RDB Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex. ST, Kolkata 2018 (359) ELT 433 (S.C) 8. M/s. Neat Prints Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Auran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant 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. 5.2 Moreover, we find that the issue is no longer res intergra. Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of RDB Textiles Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vious that there is no brand name involved in the facts of the present cases. 5.3 We further find that the Tribunal in the case Shruti Art Pvt. Ltd. (supra) Held that - 5.2 From plain reading of the said notification and circular referred, above it is evident that the use of brand name should in the course of trade in the goods under consideration. If the same is not in the course of trade then benefit of the exemption contained in this notification cannot be denied. In the present case LIC Logo printed on diaries do not establish any connection between the goods and the logo, hence the same cannot be said to be in the course of trade. Further it cannot be said that LIC is in trade of selling the LIC diaries. Thus without est ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
