9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Supreme Court in the case of RDB Textiles Ltd. Vs. CCEx. S.Tax, Kol.IV [ 2018 (2) TMI 825 - SUPREME COURT ] had examined the wordings of the Notification as it stood during the disputed period and decided that the printing of the name, logo and other particulars of buyer, like, FCI and State Governments, were made by the manufacturers to comply with the requirements of Jute Control Order. The Hon ble Supreme Court further held that the markings on jute bags were under compulsion of law and meant for identification, monitoring and control by Government Agencies and such markings cannot be considered as brand name. Exemption cannot be denied - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - SHRI P.K. CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And SHRI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .11.2015 01/03/2011 to 26.02.2013 24,74,99,677/- 9. 75131/2016 Alliance Mills Ltd 15.01.2014 07/2015-16 dtd 30.10.2015 Jan Feb 2013 3,20,45,066/- 10. 75229/2016 Trend Vyapaar Ltd 14.11.2013 12/2015-16 dtd 06.11.2015 Dec 2012 to Feb 2013 2,29,21,005/- 3.1 Brief facts of the case are that all the appellants are manufacturers of jute bags classifiable under Chapter 63 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants were claiming the benefit of Central Excise Notification No.30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004. The Notification granted exemption to jute bags. The period of dispute is from 01.03.2007 to 20.02.2013, during which the Notification was amended vide Notification No.12/2011-CE dated 01.03.2011. The amendment restr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble Apex Court had examined the wordings of the Notification as it stood during the disputed period and decided that the printing of the name, logo and other particulars of buyer, like, FCI and State Governments, were made by the manufacturers to comply with the requirements of Jute Control Order. The Hon ble Supreme Court further held that the markings on jute bags were under compulsion of law and meant for identification, monitoring and control by Government Agencies and such markings cannot be considered as brand name. Accordingly, the Apex Court held that the benefit of Notification No.30/2004-CE will be available during the disputed period. The observations of the Apex Court are reproduced below : 18. It is obvious that, on the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases. 19 . 20 . 21 . 22. The facts of these cases are far from the facts in Kohinoor Elastics (supra). In Kohinoor Elastics (supra), it was found that, as a matter of fact, the customer wanted the brand name affixed on the product because he wanted the consumer to know that there is a connection between the product and him. This is very far from the facts of the present case, in that, as has been held by us above, it is clear that the markings required on the jute bags are compulsory, being required by the Jute Commissioner, and are not for the purpose of enhancing the value of the jute bags by indicating a connection in the course of trade between the aforesaid products and the manufacturer of those products. 6. Since the issue has been d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
