"Pendants" Labeled as Jewelry Not Exempted from Excise Duty as it Cannot be Distinguished on Purity of Gold: CESTAT [Read Order]
Articles of jewelry or both falling under Heading 7113 of the Tariff Act are defined as "articles" in Rule 3(f) of the Articles of Jewellery (Collection of Duty) Rules, 2016; the term "articles of jewelry" will have the meaning assigned to it under Chapter Note 9 of Chapter 71 of the Tariff Act
![Pendants Labeled as Jewelry Not Exempted from Excise Duty as it Cannot be Distinguished on Purity of Gold: CESTAT [Read Order]](https://www.taxscan.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Pendants-Jewelry-Not-Exempted-from-Excise-Duty-Excise-Duty-Jewelry-Distinguished-on-Purity-of-Gold-Purity-of-Gold-CESTAT-taxscan.jpg "Pendants Labeled as Jewelry Not Exempted from Excise Duty as it Cannot be Distinguished on Purity of Gold: CESTAT [Read Order]")
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that pendants" labeled as jewelry are not exempted from excise duty as it cannot be distinguished on purity of gold. Read More: Over 26,000 Income Tax Appeals Filed Electronically via ITAT E-Filing Portal: PIB The assessee/appellant, P.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., manufactures jewelry merchandise....
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that pendants" labeled as jewelry are not exempted from excise duty as it cannot be distinguished on purity of gold.
Read More: Over 26,000 Income Tax Appeals Filed Electronically via ITAT E-Filing Portal: PIB
The assessee/appellant, P.P. Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., manufactures jewelry merchandise. The assessee had not paid central excise duty on the jewelry items they created and cleared, according to investigations.
The department issued a show-cause letter to explain why they should not be reimbursed for the central excise duty that they failed to pay on the final items. The assessee did not show up for the in-person hearing or submit a response to the show cause notice.
The Adjudicating Authority verified the demand after adjudication. The assessee has challenged the Adjudicating Authority's order in an appeal submitted to the Tribunal.
Guide to UAE Corporate Tax Return filing, Enroll Now
Since 24CT purity pendants are trademarked pieces of pure gold that fall under 7114 and are subject to a zero percent tax rate that hasn't altered even after central excise duty was introduced, the assessee contended that there is no duty owed on them.
However, the department contended that pendants are jewelry and that Chapter Note 9 also refers to pendants in relation to the duty demand on the 24 carat pendant.
The bench pointed out that pendants are classified as jewelry according to Chapter Note 9. Since the jewelry is not identified by gold purity either in the Chapter Note or the Heading, the assessee's claim that a pendant weighing 24 carats is false and unsupportable.
The two member bench of Bintu Tamta (Judicial) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical) has observed that the assessee's argument that 24 carat pendants are not covered by articles of jewelry is unfounded and deceptive because the jewelry is not distinguished based on gold purity either in the Chapter Note or the Heading.
Articles of jewelry or both falling under Heading 7113 of the Tariff Act are defined as "articles" in Rule 3(f) of the Articles of Jewellery (Collection of Duty) Rules, 2016; the term "articles of jewelry" will have the meaning assigned to it under Chapter Note 9 of Chapter 71 of the Tariff Act.
According to the tribunal, the assessee is required to pay excise tax on the specified sum since they are not entitled to any exemption on the products classified as pendants.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
