9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (5) TMI 595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand/2005, dated 29-11-2005 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, Kanpur. 2. The Appellant No.1 are engaged in the manufacture of footwears namely Hawai Chappals/EVA Chappals, Casual Shoes, School Shoes and PVC Footwears of Chapter Heading No. 64.01 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They have been availing exemption from payment of whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon in terms of S. No. 157 of the table appended below the Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., dated, 1-3-2002. This Notification exempts the Footwears, the Retail Sale Price of which does not exceed Rs. 250/- per pair. The aforesaid Notification was amended by Notification No. 23/2004-C.E. dated 9-7-2004 to insert Condition No. 35A in the An ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wing grounds :- Ld. Adjudicating Authority has stated that the samples of footwear were properly marked by screen printing along with stickers affixed or embossed on sole along with sticker affixed. Appellants were marking/embossing retail sale price not only in the form of sticker but in print form also. A letter to this effect was submitted to the Commissioner on 12-10-04. The show cause notice itself admits that marking of retail sale price was visually observed on the footwear in the form of stickers. Pasting of sticker on unit containers indicating the Retail Sale Price is in terms of Rule 33 of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 and it is settled law that the provisio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on and no evidence has been cited on record to prove any contumacious conduct of the Appellant to deliberately violate any provision of law, as such imposition of penalty on the Appellants is not only unjust but contrary to facts and evidence placed on record. The Appellants have relied upon catena of judgment in support of their defence. 6. During the course of personal hearing held on 10-5-2006, which was attended by Shri Amit Awasthi, Advocate and Shri Ram Chandra Rupani, Partner. They reiterated their submissions and once again quoted the pronouncement in the case of L Oreal India Ltd. [2004 (167) E.L.T. 417 (Tri. - Mumbai)] and requested relief on merits. Discussions and Findings 7. I have carefully gone through the facts of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of term marking . 11. I observe that it is not the case of the department that the Appellants were not marking the Retail Sale Price on the Footwears. It has been observed that the Retail Sale Price was being marked on Footwear itself in the form of stickers. The point of dispute is that according to department, marking in the form of sticker does not satisfy condition no. 35A while it says that exemption shall apply only to such footwears, on which the Retail Sale Price is indelibly marked or embossed on the Footwear itself. The case for the Appellants is that they were already marking the Retail Sale Price indelibly in the form of Stickers and besides affixing the Stickers, they had started marking the Retail Sale Price on the Footwea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
