2007 (8) TMI 228 - AT - Central Excise

Foot wear Uppers & Soles Soles mfd. in own factory, captively consumed are exempted under Not. 67/95 Uppers obtained by job work are exempted under not. 214/86 Both soles & Uppers are exempted; this fact was not considered in impugned order while raising demand so it deserves to be set aside

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge against the Order-in-Appeal dated 22-5-2006.
2. Applicability of Notification No. 6/2002 and Notification No. 10/96.
3. Exemption for footwear of retail price not exceeding Rs. 125/- and Rs. 250/-.
4. Demand of duty for the period between 9-7-2004 to 8-8-2004.
5. Commissioner (Appeals) issuing a Corrigendum after the original order.
6. Duty on Soles and Uppers manufactured for footwear.
7. Exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. and other relevant Notifications.
8. Job work done under different Notifications for availing exemption.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appeals were filed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 22-5-2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals-I), Bangalore. The appellants manufactured excisable footwear and availed exemptions under Notification No. 6/2002 and Notification No. 10/96. The issue arose when amendments were made to extend the exemption to footwear of retail price not exceeding Rs. 250/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand for the period prior to 10-8-2004 but demanded interest and set aside the penalty. The appellants challenged the Order-in-Appeal, raising concerns about the Corrigendum issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) altering the original order.

2. The appellants were manufacturing Soles and Uppers for footwear. They were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 67/95-C.E. for Soles and job work exemption under various Notifications for Uppers. The appellants had discharged their obligations under Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2001, for the Soles manufactured by them. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider these points in the impugned order, leading to a lack of merit in the decision. The duty obligations for Soles and Uppers were not examined thoroughly, necessitating a set aside of the impugned order and granting consequential relief to the appellants.

3. The Revenue's appeal became infructuous as the party's appeal was allowed. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal accordingly. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 11-8-2007 by the members of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore.