9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 946X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... joined - In the present case as 18061 pairs found in fully finished condition in the factory without printing of retail sale price hence the appellant availed the benefit of notification wrongly for the past period i.e. from 9-7-2004 - The Revenue only confiscated 18061 pairs which were not marked with retail sale price - Held that: footwears were still in factory and from the statement of excise clerk that there are some technical difficulties in printing the MRP it cannot be concluded that the shoes under seizure were going to be cleared without printing the MRP - Appeal is allowed - E/578/2007 - A/239/KOL/2011 - Dated:- 1-8-2011 - S/Shri S.S. Kang, Rakesh Kumar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Amit Awasti, Advocate, for the Appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e footwears the retail sale price is indelibly marked or embossed. As 18061 pairs of footwear were found in finished condition in the factory not having any MRP printed hence the appellant wrongly availed the benefit of exemption/concessional rate of duty and demand is confirmed after invoking the extended period of limitation on the ground of suppression of facts. 4. The contention of appellant is that on the date of visit 24517 pairs of footwears were found in the factory and out of these on 18061 pairs MRP was not printed. The contention is that the condition of MRP should be indelibly marked or embossed on footwear was introduced by Notification No. 23/04 dated 9-7-2004 and the demand is w.e.f. 9-7-2004 by denying the benefit of notif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that as per the instructions issued by the Board, the footwear is to be treated as manufacture for the purpose of column 4 of RG-I as soon as the uppers and soles are assembled and joined. In view of this, footwears found in factory are duly entered in their RG-I record and the appellants were under process of marking the MRP on the shoes. In view of this it cannot be said that for last five years the appellants were clearing the shoes without printing any MRP. No footwears were found outside factory without MRP printed inspite of the fact that address of their show room is disclosed on the date of visit and fact that footwears were sold through their dealers is also disclosed to the Revenue. 4.1 The appellants also argued that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the relevant period the relevant portion of Notifications in question is reproduced below. 7. The effective rate of Central Excise Duty for the footwears was notified by Notification No. 6/02 dated 1-3-2002 as amended on the assessable value after abatement to the extent of 40% from the MRP in terms of Notification No. 13/04 and such effective rate was as under : 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 Explanation - Retail sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es all taxes, local or otherwise, freight, transport charges, commission payable 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. in conditions, - (I) (i) after Condition No. 35, the following shall be inserted, namely :- Condition No. Conditions 35A This exemption shall apply only to such footwear on which the retail sale price is indelibly marked or embossed on the footwear itself; with effect from 1-3-2006, the above notification was superseded by notification No. 5/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 and the relevant portion of the said notification is as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase as 18061 pairs found in fully finished condition in the factory without printing of retail sale price hence the appellant availed the benefit of notification wrongly for the past period i.e. from 9-7-2004. 10. From the facts of the case, we find that on the date of visit, out of 24517 pair of footwear found in the factory, 6456 pair were duly marked with the retail sale price. There is no dispute in respect of these footwears. 18061 pairs were found without printing of retail price. The Revenue only confiscated 18061 pairs which were not marked with retail sale price. The presence in the factory of 6456 pairs which were duly marked with retail sale price shows that the printing of MRP on the footwear was being done. We further find fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
