No Excise Duty since Manufacture of Goods bearing Brand Name was not Sold by Customers of Manufacturer: CESTAT [Read Order]

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai bench has held that excise duty cannot be leviable on the manufacture of goods bearing brand name since the same was not sold by the customers of the manufacturer.

The appellant, Mohanlal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, manufactured and supplied gold coins to be distributed by the Government of Tamil Nadu under some welfare scheme undertaken by the Government and also to M/s. Chettinad Cement Corporation Pvt. Ltd., for distribution to their employees. The department opined that the appellant manufactured gold coins bearing a brand name of others and thus gold manufactured by them attract 1% duty in terms of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 as per Sl. No. 200.

The appellants contended that they have obtained orders for manufacturing gold coins from the Government of Tamil Nadu as well as from Chettinad Cements Corporation Pvt. Limited.

The bench comprising Judicial Member CS Sulekha Beevi and Technical Member P Anjani Kumar found that the coins manufactured for the Government were supposed to be used for the distribution to the beneficiaries‟ of the Government Scheme.

“We also find that as per the confirmation given by the Senior Manager of Chettinad Cements Corporation Pvt. Ltd., during the cross examination on 23.08.2019, the gold coins were meant for distribution to the stockists and dealers as incentives and they did not trade the gold coins so purchased. We find that the department confirmed the duty only on the premise that the appellants have manufactured branded jewellery. We find that what the adjudicating authority has lost sight of is the fact that though the appellants have inscribed/embossed the name of the customers as well as Govt. of Tamil Nadu and Chettinad Cements Corporation Pvt. Ltd., it could not be said to be a „brand‟ used in connection of trade and commerce engaged by the person. It is not the case of the department that either of the customers of the appellant is engaged in the trade and gold coins bearing their brand. Therefore, the very concept of branding goods is not appreciated in a legal and proper manner. Admittedly, inscribed or embossed on the gold coins manufactured by the appellants have their customers is certain identification with the respective customers who have got the gold coins manufactured for distribution only and not for use as a merchandise. As long as the customers of the appellants are not engaged in the trade/commerce/business, inscription on the gold coins cannot said to have in connection in the course of trade with the product manufacture,” the bench said.

Concluding the appeal, the Tribunal held that “on going by the ratio of the above judgments, we find that as long as the goods are not sold by the customers of the appellant in the brand name which they are manufactured, the same cannot be held bearing brand name making them dutiable. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that as the appellants have not manufactured branded jewellery, the exemption contained in the said notification is applicable to them and the impugned order is not legally sustainable.”

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.