9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m goldsmiths who worked as job workers for making such jewels which were sold through their showrooms. The items sold by the appellant-jewellers bore various abbreviations which varied from jeweller to jeweller. For example, the abbreviation 'CKC' was used by M/S. C. Krishnaiah Chetty & Sons Pvt. Ltd, and 'ABJ' was being used by M/S. Abharan Jewellers. The Department took the view that these marks which were affixed on their jewellery items were considered as brand names within the meaning assigned in the Notification Nou4/2005 and hence, proceeded to levy excise duty on such jewellery items during the disputed period 1 . 3.2005 to 30.11.2005. The amounts of excise duty along with interest and penalties were levied vide the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of the appellant. He further referred to the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE vs. Anopchand Trilokchand Jewellers P. Ltd.: 2017 (356) ELT 271 (T) in which the Tribunal has held that no excise duty is liable in cases where jewels has been embossed with miniaturised initials in inconspicuous places, He submitted that the appeals in the present case will be covered by the above decision of the Tribunal and prayed that the impugned orders may be set aside. c) He further argued that the jewellery in all these cases have been actually made by various goldsmiths who should be considered as the actual manufacturers liable to payment of duty as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; or 'Trade Name' for the purposes of the said Notification. He submitted that any mark or symbol or monogram, etc., which is used in relation to the product and which indicates a connection in the course of trade between the product and some person using such name or mark is to be considered as 'Brand Name'. He submitted further that the abbreviations such as 'CKC' or 'ABJ' clearly indicate a connection between such symbols and jewellers selling such jewellery. Hence, the goods sold by the jewellers who appellants fall within the category of branded jewellery which is liable to excise duty under the Tariff and the Notification as above. (ii) He also relied on the decision rendered in the case of Titan Indus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he names of the jewellers. The connected question is whether such marks are to be considered as "Brand Names/Trade Names", in terms of the Explanation in the Notification No.4/2005 dated 1.3.2005. 8.1 During the course of arguments, it has come to notice that there are contradictory decisions by different Division Benches of this Tribunal dealing with identical facts. In the case of Titan Industries (supra) relied upon by Revenue, the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal has taken a view that the jewels embossed with such marks are branded jewellery and chargeable to Central Excise duty, However, the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE vs, Anopchand Trilokchand Jewellers P. Ltd. (supra) has taken the opposite view, holding th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
