2017 (2) TMI 1301 - AT - Central Excise

SSI exemption - use of brand name - Held that - mere inscription of two small letters viz. AT on various jewellery items cannot make said letters AT a brand name unless these two letters AT could be covered by the definition of brand name or trade name - the fact that the respondents have a different trade mark/brand name registered in their name, which has not been used for the subject goods viz. articles of jewellery, mere use of minute-sized two letters - AT cannot be called the brand name of the respondents - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of brand name/trade name in relation to Central Excise duty liability on jewellery.
2. Determination of whether inscription of letters "AT" on jewellery constitutes a brand name.
3. Assessment of whether jewellery marked with "AT" falls under the definition of branded jewellery.
4. Consideration of whether the mark "AT" qualifies as a brand name/trade name based on legal definitions.
5. Analysis of the Commissioner's decision regarding the imposition of duty and penalty on the appellant.

Issue 1: Interpretation of brand name/trade name in relation to Central Excise duty liability on jewellery:
The Revenue issued a show cause notice alleging the liability of the respondents for Central Excise duty on jewellery bearing the trade name "Anopchand Trilokchand" with the abbreviation "AT." The Commissioner's order clarified that the inscription of "AT" did not qualify as a brand name of jewellery, as it was merely a mark to identify the jeweller. The Commissioner held that the demand for duty was not sustainable under the law, leading to the dropping of proceedings against the appellant.

Issue 2: Determination of whether inscription of letters "AT" on jewellery constitutes a brand name:
The appellant argued that the mark "AT" on the jewellery was inconspicuous and placed by goldsmiths, not by them directly. They contended that the mark was a jeweller's mark and not a brand name. The appellant also highlighted that their registered trade mark involved the use of "AT" with a diamond and the full name of their company. The Tribunal noted that the mere inscription of "AT" did not meet the definition of a brand name or trade name under the Central Excise Tariff Act.

Issue 3: Assessment of whether jewellery marked with "AT" falls under the definition of branded jewellery:
The Tribunal considered the arguments from both sides and concluded that the jewellery marked with "AT" did not qualify as branded jewellery. The respondents had a separate registered trade mark that was not used on the jewellery in question. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the Revenue's appeal lacked merit and rejected it.

Issue 4: Consideration of whether the mark "AT" qualifies as a brand name/trade name based on legal definitions:
The Tribunal referred to the legal definition of brand name/trade name under Chapter Note 12 of Chapter 71 of the Central Excise Tariff. It emphasized that for a name or mark to be considered a brand name, it must be used for the purpose of identity or to indicate a connection in the course of trade. The Tribunal determined that the mark "AT" did not meet these criteria to be classified as a brand name.

Issue 5: Analysis of the Commissioner's decision regarding the imposition of duty and penalty on the appellant:
The Commissioner's decision to drop the proceedings against the appellant was based on the finding that the jewellery marked with "AT" did not fall under the category of branded jewellery subject to Central Excise duty. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, stating that the Revenue's appeal lacked merit and deserved to be rejected, leading to the sustained decision in favor of the appellant.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal interpretations and arguments presented in the case regarding the branding of jewellery and the imposition of Central Excise duty based on the presence of the mark "AT" on the jewellery items.