https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358107 The case involved the liability to Central Excise duty on jewellery embossed with marks, determining whether these marks constituted "Brand Names/Trade Names" as per Notification No.4/2005. The conflicting interpretations led to the matter being referred to a Larger Bench for resolution. The decision underscored the significance of clarifying whether marks on jewellery qualify as brand names for excise duty, emphasizing the necessity for consistent interpretation of legal provisions. en-us Fri, 16 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:12:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358107 The case involved the liability to Central Excise duty on jewellery embossed with marks, determining whether these marks constituted "Brand Names/Trade Names" as per Notification No.4/2005. The conflicting interpretations led to the matter being referred to a Larger Bench for resolution. The decision underscored the significance of clarifying whether marks on jewellery qualify as brand names for excise duty, emphasizing the necessity for consistent interpretation of legal provisions. Case-Laws Central Excise Fri, 16 Feb 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=358107