TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 218
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the orders under appeal are given herein below: Appeal No. Appellant Period Duty Penalties Impugned order E/199/2007 Abharan March 2005 to March 2006 Rs. 68,38,660/- Equal penalty under Section 11 AC and Rs. 10,000 under Rule 25 010 No. 18/2006 dt.22.12,2006 E/200/2007 Subhas M. Kamath - Rs. 1,00,000/- E/547/2008 c. Krishnaiah Chetty & Sons Pvt. Ltd. 103.2005 t 30.11.2005 Rs. 1,37,00,571/- Equal under 11AC penalty Section 010 No.10/07 dt.31.3.2008 E/548/2008 Vinod Ha a riv -do- - Rs. 13,70,000/- -do- E/549/2008 Abharan -do- Rs. 31,40,607/ Equal under 11AC penalty Section 010 Noni 1/07 dt.31.3.2008 E/550/2008 Pratap ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y items were considered as brand names within the meaning assigned in the Notification Nou4/2005 and hence, proceeded to levy excise duty on such jewellery items during the disputed period 1 . 3.2005 to 30.11.2005. The amounts of excise duty along with interest and penalties were levied vide the impugned orders which are being challenged before us through this batch of appeals. 4. In this connection, we heard both sides. 5. On behalf of the appellants, the case was mainly argued by lead counsel Shri K. S. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel, whose submissions are summarised below: a) Revenue has taken the view that the abbreviations which were embossed on the jewellery are in the nature of brand names and hence the items are liable for p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be set aside. c) He further argued that the jewellery in all these cases have been actually made by various goldsmiths who should be considered as the actual manufacturers liable to payment of duty as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE vs. MM Khambatwala: 1996 (84) ELT 161 (SC). d) He also emphatically relied on the CBEC Circular dated 4.302005 in which issue has been clarified in para 2 (i) (ii) which are reproduced below: (i) A jeweller "ABC Jewellers " gets his articles of Jewellery, from gold smiths/job workers who put a marks sign initials, etc. on the article of Jewellery. This is only to identify that the article of jewellery was received from a particular goldsmith, etc. This is not branded....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h jewellery. Hence, the goods sold by the jewellers who appellants fall within the category of branded jewellery which is liable to excise duty under the Tariff and the Notification as above. (ii) He also relied on the decision rendered in the case of Titan Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Chennai: 2016 (337) ELT 250 (Tri. - Chennai) in which an identical matter has been considered by the Tribunal with reference to the same Notification dated 4/2005 and similar goods manufactured and sold by M/S. Titan Industries. He submitted that the Tribunal in the above case has taken the view that the letters "Q" and "I" embossed on the jewellery by M/s. Titan Industries have been held as Brand Name' for the purposes of the above Notification and the Tr....