9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 862X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otwears, which are below the MRP of ₹ 250/- or ₹ 500/- and the condition of embossing the same can be held to be in the nature of being sure that the footwears does not exceed the said laid-down limit of MRP. When the Revenue itself is of the view that the MRP was admittedly less than the said prescribed MRP, even if the goods were not marked with the said MRP and especially, when the MRP wad admittedly written on the outer package of the fotwears, the creation of huge demand on the said technical lapse cannot be appreciated. - Stay granted. - E/Stay/53703 and 53740/2014 in Appeal No.53288 and 53315/2014-Ex(DB) - Stay Order No. S/54409-54410/2014-EX(DB) - Dated:- 26-11-2014 - Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) And Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... belief that the appellant were wrongly availing the benefit of the notification in question, the goods were seized. During the post-seizure investigation, the statement of the Director was also recorded. 4. On the above basis, the proceedings were initiated against the appellant on the ground that they are not entitled to the benefit of the notifications in question, inasmuch as the footwears were not embossed with the MRP and as such, the condition of notification requiring the footwears to be indelible marked or embossed with the MRP does not stand fulfilled. 5. During the course of adjudication, the appellant took a categorical stand that footwear manufactured at their other unit as also in the present unit are identical. They were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the past-clearance of the footwears was without marking the same with the MRP. In the absence of any such admission by any of the persons and in absence of any further investigations, from the buyers of the appellant, the reasoning of the Revenue that all the previous clearances were without the MRP markings has to be held as based upon the assumptions and presumptions. 9. In any case, we find that the Commissioner himself came to a clear finding that MRP of the footwears was admittedly below ₹ 500/-. In such a scenario, it has to be held that the substantive condition of the notification in question sands fulfilled. 10. The notification grants benefit to the footwears, which are below the MRP of ₹ 250/- or ₹ 500/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
