9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 946X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so confiscated the footwears found in the factory and allowed the same to be released on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 5.00 lakhs. The demand is confirmed on the ground that the appellant in violation to the condition of Notification No. 6/02 as amended by Notification No. 23/04 dated 9-7-2004 and Notification No. 5/06, dated 1-3-2006 introduced w.e.f. 9-7-2004 made clearance of footwear availing exemption/concessional rate of duty and abatement on such clearance also claimed under Section 4A of Central Excise Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 19-12-2006, the officers of Revenue visited factory premises of appellant and it was found that 18061 pair of footwear were not having any retail sale price indelibly marked or emb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n indeliable ink or that in past also the footwears were being cleared without printing/embossing the MRP. The Appellant also pleaded that the revenue relies upon the statements of Shri Imadid Uddin who is excise clerk and the statement of Shri Quaisar Alvi, General Manager. Shri Imadid Uddin in his statement had stated that the condition of exemption notification in question were not maintained by them due to some technical difficulties excepting in respect of some category of school shoes, since April, 2006 whereas in the present proceedings the demand is confirmed from 9-7-2004. Both their statements had been retracted. The General Manager Shri Quaisar Alvi in his statement had also disclosed the address of their show room situated at 46 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t hence the demand is not sustainable. 5. The Revenue relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Novopan India Ltd. v. Collector of C. Ex. & Customs, Hyderabad reported in 1994 (73) E.L.T. 769 (S.C.) to submit that the conditions of the notification are to be strictly construed and onus is on the manufacturer to show that he has complied with the conditions of notification and in case of any doubt or ambiguity the benefit must go to the state. The Revenue is relying upon the fact that on the date of visit 18061 pairs of footwear which were found in packed condition and duly entered in the RG-I record were not marked with the MRP. The Revenue also submitted that the retraction of statements was not made before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... further amends the above exemption notification and the benefit of full exemption as well as effective rate of footwear was allowed, with reference to different slabs of MRP of the said goods, subject to condition contained in the said notification. The amended provision of the exemption notification for the said goods is as under : In the said Notification, - (iv) for S. No. 157 and the entries relating thereto, the following shall be substituted, namely - Serial No. Chapter Heading or Sub-heading No. Description of Goods Rate under the First Schedule Rate under the Second Schedule Condition No. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) "157 64.01 Footwear of retail sale price not exceeding Rs. 125 per pair Nil - 35A" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to dealers, and all charges towards advertisement, delivery, packing, forwarding and the like, as the case may be, and the price is the sole consideration for such sale. Condition No. Conditions 2 This exemption shall apply only to such footwear on which the retail sale price is indelibly marked or embossed on the footwear itself; 8. We agree with the contention of the Revenue that conditions of the notification are to be strictly construed. 9. Now we take up the facts of the present case. The case of the Revenue is that after 9-7-2004, the manufacturer is entitled for the benefit of above Notifications, in question, only on such footwear on which the retail sale price is deliably marked or embossed on footw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication were without printing the retail sale price. Particularly in view of the fact that no footwear was found outside the factory which were cleared under the benefit of notification and without printing of retail sale price. On the contrary appellant produced evidence from their 62 dealers that all the footwears received by them are having Retail Sale Price printed. Hence the demand of duty is not sustainable on the evidence on record. 11. In respect of confiscation of the footwears found in factory, there is no evidence to show that these footwears were to be cleared by availing the benefit of notification in question without affixing the MRP. The footwears were still in factory and from the statement of excise clerk that there a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
