2017 (11) TMI 1566 - AT - Central Excise

Duty liability - clearance of rejected / unusable cut components arising during the course of manufacture of the said leather uppers - Revenue entertained a view that the appellants did not discharge duty when they cleared such rejected shoe uppers - Held that - all the invoices issued during the relevant period were for clearance of cut scrap of leather. However, it is a fact that some purchase orders / quotations did indicate rejected uppers for intended purchase. Other than these, there is no evidence to show that the appellant did clear shoe uppers in the guise of scrap - There is no allegation in the proceedings before the lower authorities that the invoices which covered the clearance of the impugned goods are manipulated and intentionally mis-stated - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Duty liability on rejected/unusable cut components during leather shoe uppers manufacturing.

The appeal challenged the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) regarding the duty liability of the appellant for clearance of rejected/unusable cut components during the manufacture of leather shoe uppers. The dispute arose when the Revenue alleged that the appellant did not discharge duty when clearing rejected shoe uppers. The appellant claimed they cleared leather scrap, including unusable shoe uppers, but the Revenue imposed a duty liability of ?2,50,400 along with a penalty under section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant argued that they paid duty on rejected shoe uppers when cleared, as recorded in the original order dated 11.3.2005, and submitted invoices showing clearance of cut scrap as scrap, not usable shoe uppers.

The appellant contended that due to the company's closure during the earlier litigation rounds, they could not provide detailed supporting documents. The appellant emphasized that they paid duty on damaged uppers, rejected and unusable, as recorded in the original order. The lower authorities, however, found the evidence presented insufficient to establish that only cut scrap, not usable shoe uppers, was cleared without duty payment. The appellant submitted invoices for clearance of leather scrap, clearly labeled as scrap, arguing that duty cannot be imposed on cut scrap of leather as it is not a manufactured item.

The appellant's counsel argued that the appellant paid duty on rejected shoe uppers when cleared and submitted invoices showing clearance of cut scrap labeled as scrap. The Revenue opposed the appeal, stating that the appellant failed to provide categorical evidence supporting their claim that only cut scrap, not rejected shoe uppers, was cleared. The Revenue pointed to quotations and purchase orders mentioning 'uppers rejected' as evidence supporting their duty liability determination.

After hearing both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal noted that all invoices during the relevant period were for the clearance of cut scrap of leather. While some purchase orders and quotations mentioned 'rejected uppers,' there was no evidence indicating that the appellant cleared shoe uppers as scrap, apart from these instances. The Tribunal found no evidence of manipulation or intentional misstatement in the invoices covering the clearance of the disputed goods. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that no sustainable duty demand could be made against the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with any consequential relief.