Brand owner;s liability of excise
This query is : Resolved
23 August 2012
If a brand owner manufactured goods from small vendor who are not in preview of excise ( due to basic exemption of 1.5 crore), is there any excise tax liabilities will required to pay- if yes by whom, the vendor or by brand owner.
24 August 2012
From your Query I assume that you Manufactured total salable product of a brand owner and you separately manufacture different product
here 2 cases involves 1 ) The goods you manufacture and
2) manufacturing for Brand owner
in first case as u told you are below 1.5 cr and therefor avail 8/2003 notification that means u r not liable to pay excise duty on your own product until u cross 1.5 cr
But in 2) Case Manufacturing of branded product in this case u have to pay excise duty from rupee 1
Nilesh K-Sagar
here 2 cases involves 1 ) The goods you manufacture and
2) manufacturing for Brand owner
in first case as u told you are below 1.5 cr and therefor avail 8/2003 notification that means u r not liable to pay excise duty on your own product until u cross 1.5 cr
But in 2) Case Manufacturing of branded product in this case u have to pay excise duty from rupee 1
Nilesh K-Sagar
25 August 2012
Brand owner is not a mfg. , He will order the products from various small manufacturer to produce the goods as per design & requirement under his brand name.Even then also senario will remain same?
26 August 2012
If u are manufacturing Branded Goods then it is your responsibility whether Brand owner is Mfg Or No not please refer following
Brand Owner is not the Manufacturer - Some large units get their goods manufactured from others under their Brand Name, instead of manufacturing it themselves. They usually control quality and may even supply the design. e.g. Bajaj Electricals get many electrical goods manufactured from others; Batas procure some foot-wear from others and supply under their brand name. Some large pharmaceutical companies also get the goods manufactured from small scale units under their brand names. In such cases; Bajaj, Bata or the Pharmaceutical Companies will not be treated as ‘Manufacturer’ even if they exercise quality control, or allow use of their brand name, or provide financial help to the small manufacturers, or even supply the raw material, if their relation with the manufacturer is ‘Principal to Principal’ basis. Supreme Court in Cibatul Ltd. v. UOI - 1978 (22) ELT 302 (SC) - have held that if the goods are produced with Customer’s brand name under his quality control, it does not mean that the Customer is the Manufacturer. Same view was reaffirmed in Jt. Secretary to Government of India v. Food Specialities Ltd. - 1985 (22) ELT 324 (SC).
Brand name owner will not be manufacturer even if he supplies raw material. - Philips India Ltd. v. UOI - 1980 (6) ELT 263 (All HC DB) - quoted and followed in Cheryl Laboratories v. CCE - 1993 (65) ELT 596 (CEGAT
Brand Owner is not the Manufacturer - Some large units get their goods manufactured from others under their Brand Name, instead of manufacturing it themselves. They usually control quality and may even supply the design. e.g. Bajaj Electricals get many electrical goods manufactured from others; Batas procure some foot-wear from others and supply under their brand name. Some large pharmaceutical companies also get the goods manufactured from small scale units under their brand names. In such cases; Bajaj, Bata or the Pharmaceutical Companies will not be treated as ‘Manufacturer’ even if they exercise quality control, or allow use of their brand name, or provide financial help to the small manufacturers, or even supply the raw material, if their relation with the manufacturer is ‘Principal to Principal’ basis. Supreme Court in Cibatul Ltd. v. UOI - 1978 (22) ELT 302 (SC) - have held that if the goods are produced with Customer’s brand name under his quality control, it does not mean that the Customer is the Manufacturer. Same view was reaffirmed in Jt. Secretary to Government of India v. Food Specialities Ltd. - 1985 (22) ELT 324 (SC).
Brand name owner will not be manufacturer even if he supplies raw material. - Philips India Ltd. v. UOI - 1980 (6) ELT 263 (All HC DB) - quoted and followed in Cheryl Laboratories v. CCE - 1993 (65) ELT 596 (CEGAT
You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .
Click here to login now
Click here to login now
Similar Resolved Queries
Unanswered Queries
- Off Market debit and credit transaction
- Itr 1 processing
- Showing Gift from relative in ITR for this year
- INCOME TAX ON REDEVELOPEMENT OF FLAT
- ITR returnFY25-26
- ITR selection for salaries and capital gain less than L
- Form 10E u/s 89(1). Need clarification because experts opinions differ !!!!
- ITR 1: Details for showing Exempt Income
- Short Term Capital gain on shares bought and sold after 2018 onwards
- Share accounting-->fifo - capital gain - period as per fifo?
- Reporting Income under Section 44ADA
- Gst invoice numbering and delivery challan numbering
- Sales amount in Gstr1
- E Commerce GSTR1 & 3B how to file
- GST Cancellation without jurisdiction
- Legal Opinion on Registrar's Refusal to Investigate a Society for Non-Renewal and Non-Compliance
- GST Refund_RFD-01
- Form10BD was uploaded successfully without any Error but after 24 hours, Form10BE are not available
- Annexure B utility for GST Refund
- Tax amount diff in Gstr1 and 3B in tax compare reports
Trending Online Classes
-
DT & Audit (Exam Oriented Fastrack Batch) - For May 26 Exams and onwards Full English
CA Bhanwar Borana & CA Shubham Keswani
Subscribe to Pro
Join an elite circle of professionals
CAclubindia
