<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2020 (2) TMI 1380 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291797</link>
    <description>Branded-jewellery duty applies only where an indelibly affixed or embossed mark functions as a brand or trade name and indicates a commercial connection in the course of trade. The decisive inquiry is fact-specific: the mark must be understood in trade as identifying jewellery marketed and sold under that mark. Mere initials, job-worker identification marks, or house marks used for internal identification do not automatically constitute branding. Earlier Tribunal rulings concerning initials and replacement of established brands were distinguishable on their facts and did not establish conflicting legal tests. The appeals remained for decision on merits under this clarified test.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 Nov 2020 20:21:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=628515" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 1380 - CESTAT, BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291797</link>
      <description>Branded-jewellery duty applies only where an indelibly affixed or embossed mark functions as a brand or trade name and indicates a commercial connection in the course of trade. The decisive inquiry is fact-specific: the mark must be understood in trade as identifying jewellery marketed and sold under that mark. Mere initials, job-worker identification marks, or house marks used for internal identification do not automatically constitute branding. Earlier Tribunal rulings concerning initials and replacement of established brands were distinguishable on their facts and did not establish conflicting legal tests. The appeals remained for decision on merits under this clarified test.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=291797</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>