Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2018 (1) TMI 624

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ase are that the appellant, a public sector enterprise, during the period under consideration, was selling the silver/gold coins (medallions ) as well as articles of silver. As per the notification No. 1/2011 dated 1.3.2011, one per cent duty was leviable on the articles, except the jewellery, sold in the brand name. So, the department has demanded 1% duty on the articles made by the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed the present appeals. 3. With this background, we heard Shri Amit Jain, learned Counsel. He submits that appellant has a trade mark known as 'Sanchi' but same was not used for the coins. Even for the articles, it was used only in the packing box. 'Sanchi' Trade Mark is not printed on the articles. He submits tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 11. Steel Tubes of India vs. CCE, Indore [2007 (217) ELT 506 (Tri-LB)] 5. Learned Counsel also took alternative plea on quantification for the levy of 1 % duty. Department has considered the total sales value Rs. 937 crore but as per Chartered Accountant certificate it is Rs. 556 crore. He made a request for rectification of this mistake. Lastly, he requested to set aside the impugned order. He also submits that the demand is time barred. 6. Learned Counsel submits that as per notification No. 05/06 dated 1.3.2006, no duty is leviable. But fact remains that as per notification No. 1/2011 dated 1.3.2011, 1% levy is the matter of dispute before us. 7. On the other hand, Shri S K Bansal, learned DR submits that appellant has soug....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sed on all the products of the manufacturer and that it is usually a device or a form of emblem of words or both. It was also pointed out that for each product a separate mark known as a "Product mark" or "Brand name" is used which is invariably a word or combination of word and letter or numeral by which the product is identified and asked for. It was also stated that in respect of all products both the "Product mark" and "Brand name" would appear side by side on all the labels, cartons etc. and that the "House mark" is used generally as an emblem of the manufacturer projecting the image of the manufacturer, whereas "Brand name" is a name or trade mark either unregistered or registered under the Act. 34. Therefore, it is not necessary t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ms and this fact is not in dispute. The department has proceeded to demand the duty considering such house mark to be in the nature of brand name. 13. In the CBEC circular No. B-1/3/2011 TRU dated 25.3.2011, issued at the time of introduction of 1% duty, it has been clarified that, "only such jewellery or other articles of precious metals which either bear or are marketed and sold under a brand name attract this levy. Whether a particular name or mark or symbol etc. is a brand name or not is a matter of fact, and can be ascertained from the manner in which it is understood in commercial or trade parlance. The test of goods being branded would be if the buyer seeks to buy the goods because they bear or are sold under a particular brand. A....