https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353888 A mere house mark or logo on precious-metal articles is not treated as a brand name for the purpose of the 1% excise levy under Notification No. 1/2011. On the stated facts, gold and silver medallions bearing only the house mark were outside the levy, while silver articles sold with the brand name shown on the packing material were liable. Where the turnover and sales value adopted in adjudication were disputed, the demand required fresh quantification on the correct figures and limited to the branded silver articles. The stated conclusion was partial relief, with liability confined to goods sold under a brand name in commercial understanding. en-us Wed, 22 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Jan 2019 14:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353888 A mere house mark or logo on precious-metal articles is not treated as a brand name for the purpose of the 1% excise levy under Notification No. 1/2011. On the stated facts, gold and silver medallions bearing only the house mark were outside the levy, while silver articles sold with the brand name shown on the packing material were liable. Where the turnover and sales value adopted in adjudication were disputed, the demand required fresh quantification on the correct figures and limited to the branded silver articles. The stated conclusion was partial relief, with liability confined to goods sold under a brand name in commercial understanding. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 22 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=353888