9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1341X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by notification No. 12/2011 dated 01.03.2011, is assailed in this appeal. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that Appellant owns brand name 'TEXAS' for goods falling under Chapter 62. Such goods manufactured through Job workers were all exempted vide notification No. 30/2004-C.E dated 09.07.2004 but amended Notification No. 12/2011-C.E referred above has made it taxable in respect of goods bearing a brand name or sold under a brand name. Appellant had pre-budgeted stocks. Those were cleared from the factory under job-workers' challans prior to 28.02.2011 and Appellant had intimated the same by its letter dated 07.03.2011 to the Department that was in conformity to subsequent clarification issued vide letter dated 25.03.2011 by the Resear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch Appellant had not made any further processing. 4. To justify the findings, the Commissioner(Appeals) had held that goods were received by the Appellant without brand name and Appellant had affixed its brand name and re-packed the same again subsequent to receipt of the goods and those activities being amounting to manufacture, were carried out afterwards for which duty was payable on those products and Appellant was liable to pay the duties alongwith interest and penalty but their categorical statement made in the impound letter regarding goods lying in their factory warehouse after being cleared without payment of duty at job-workers end and not about activities being done on the same goods, it can be said that no duty was leviable on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pply us the goods in ready packed condition and we do not carry any further process on the same." This sentence together with the previous one would go to justify that branding was done prior to goods were cleared by job-workers at Appellant's end, no further processing was carried out. It has also been rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the Appellant that Show Cause Cum Demand Notice also records that Appellant was getting garments manufactured from various job-workers under the said brand name. This being so, we are of the considered view that brand names were put by the job-workers and not by the Appellant on the garments manufactured and cleared at the job workers end. 7. Another important point which we want to place on reco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
