2018 (4) TMI 218 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - Brand name - articles of jewellery on which certain marks are embossed, which are abbreviations of the names of the jewellers - whether such marks are to be considered as Brand Names/Trade Names , in terms of the Explanation in the N/N. 4/2005 dated 1.3.2005? - Held that - Since there are contradictory views expressed by two different Division Benches of the Tribunal on the identical issue, we direct the Registry to place the matters before the Hon'ble President for setting up a Larger Bench to decide this issue - matter referred to Larger Bench.

Summary

Issues Involved:
The liability to Central Excise duty on articles of jewellery embossed with marks during the period 1.3.2005 to 30.11.2005, and whether these marks constitute "Brand Names/Trade Names" as per Explanation in Notification No.4/2005 dated 1.3.2005.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Liability to Central Excise duty on jewellery with embossed marks
The appeals revolve around the imposition of excise duty on jewellery items bearing marks, considered as brand names under Notification No.4/2005 dated 1.3.2005. The appellants argued that the marks were jewellers' marks, not brand names, citing the distinction between "house mark" and "product mark" from a Supreme Court case. They also referred to tribunal decisions supporting their stance. The Revenue contended that the marks indicated a connection between the jewellers and the products, qualifying them as brand names. They referenced a tribunal decision involving Titan Industries to support their argument.

Issue 2: Interpretation of the Explanation in Notification No.4/2005
The Explanation in Notification No.4/2005 defined "Brand Name/Trade Name" for the levy of excise duty. The appellants argued that the marks were not brand names, relying on CBEC Circular and tribunal decisions. However, the Revenue maintained that the marks indicated a trade connection, making the jewellery branded and subject to excise duty. The conflicting interpretations by different tribunal benches led to the need for a Larger Bench to resolve the issue.

Conclusion:
Given the contradictory views by different Division Benches of the Tribunal, the matter was referred to the Hon'ble President for the constitution of a Larger Bench to address the issue. The decision highlighted the importance of determining whether marks on jewellery constitute brand names for excise duty purposes, emphasizing the need for clarity and consistency in interpreting such legal provisions.

(Order pronounced on 16-02-2018)