2017 (9) TMI 336 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - footwear - MRP based valuation - non marking of the MRP on the footwear - whether non compliance of this condition specified in the N/N. 12/2012-CE can be considered as a technical violation? - Held that - non compliance of this condition specified in the notification no.12/2012-CE cannot be considered as a technical violation - however, the non-compliance of the conditions of the notification in respect of the second factory of the appellant cannot disentitle the footwear cleared from the first factory to the benefit of the exemption. Consequently, we are of the view that the adjudicating authority has erred in sustaining the demand for the entire period of January 2011 to March 2013 in respect of footwear cleared from both the factories. The demand to be confirmed for the violation of the condition of the notification will need to be restricted to the clearance made from the appellant s factory situated at T-I/110, Mangolpuri, Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi, for the period upto 19.07.2012. For the purpose of re-quantification, the case is remanded back to the adjudicating authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Central Excise duty demand on footwear manufacturing units for non-compliance with MRP embossing requirement under notifications.
2. Allegations of non-fulfillment of notification conditions and demand for duty.
3. Imposition of penalty on the Director under Central Excise Rules 2002.
4. Appeal against the order confirming central excise duty demand and penalty.

Issue 1: Central Excise duty demand on footwear manufacturing units for non-compliance with MRP embossing requirement under notifications:

The appeal challenged an order against a footwear manufacturer for not embossing the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) on footwear, leading to a Central Excise duty demand. The appellant had two units, and during a search, one unit was found compliant with the MRP embossing requirement, while the other had stock without MRP embossing. The Revenue demanded duty for the period from January 2011 to March 2013. The Tribunal found that the demand was unsustainable for the compliant unit but upheld it for the non-compliant unit until the search date. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of MRP embossing for availing exemption under the notifications.

Issue 2: Allegations of non-fulfillment of notification conditions and demand for duty:

The investigation alleged that the appellant did not fulfill the MRP embossing condition under the relevant notifications, leading to a Central Excise duty demand. The appellant argued that their footwear's MRP was below the specified value, and the non-embossing was a technical violation. The Tribunal agreed that the non-compliance was a violation but restricted the duty demand to the non-compliant unit until the search date, emphasizing the need for strict compliance with notification conditions for availing exemptions.

Issue 3: Imposition of penalty on the Director under Central Excise Rules 2002:

A penalty of ?20 lakhs was imposed on the Director under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue in the judgment, focusing primarily on the duty demand and compliance with notification conditions.

Issue 4: Appeal against the order confirming central excise duty demand and penalty:

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals by remanding the case back to the adjudicating authority. It directed a re-quantification of demand only for the non-compliant unit until the search date, emphasizing the importance of MRP embossing for availing exemptions under the notifications. The Tribunal highlighted the need for strict compliance with notification conditions and provided an opportunity for additional evidence and appropriate penalty determination in the de novo proceedings.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, Tribunal's findings, and the final decision regarding the Central Excise duty demand and compliance with notification requirements in the case of the footwear manufacturing units.