9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 416X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estion particularly. On such vague statement, no conclusive averment can be said to be made so as to deny the exemption of N/N. 5/2006- CE - Further, it is admitted fact that the appellant has manufactured and cleared their product only to the Government Organization like-NCC & CISF etc. at the rate contract which is less than ₹ 250/- per pair, and reliance was placed in the case of Shri Suresh Kumar and others Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur[2015 (6) TMI 733 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held that the provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures Act and the Rules made thereunder have no relevance for complying with the conditions of this exemption notification - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le DVS is at ₹ 242.10/-. Subsequently, the appellant appeared before the Superintendent and produced the copies of their balance sheets for the relevant period and as per the balance sheets their clearances of the footwear from the factory was found as under: S.N. Year value of clearances 1. 2005-06 Rs.21,28,054.00 2. 2006-07 Rs.1,23,56,385.00 3. 2007-08 Rs.73,84,420.00 4. 2008-09 Rs.3,46,14,280.00 (Rs.1,45,80,775.00 Manufacturing + ₹ 2,02,05,505.00 Trading) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thin the exemption limit, but under SSI Exemption notification as amended, exceeded the limit in Financial Year 2006-2007 (Rs.1,23,56,385 1,00,000 = ₹ 23,56,385/-) and liable to pay duty @ 16.32% plus Ed. Cess which comes to ₹ 3,84,562.00/- and the same was demanded under the provisions of Section 11(A)(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by invoking the extended period of limitation as they have neither declared their value of clearances of the articles, which is below ₹ 250/-, to the Government Department, nor has taken out the Central Excise Registration and have not paid the duty thereon, as applicable during the relevant time. 5. The appellant contested the SCN and same were adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A/50432-50442/2015-EX[DB] dated 11/02/2015 holding as follows: There is no dispute that the shoes were supplied to Defence organization at DGS D rate and the retail price of the shoes so supplied is less than ₹ 250/- per pair. The only point of dispute as to whether the retail price was indelibly printed or embossed on the shoes. In this regard, only in one case, the Director of the appellant company had initially given the statement that the price was not being printed or embossed, but he has subsequently retracted his statement. Other than this, there is no evidence that the appellant were not complying with this condition. The department mainly relying upon the Standards of Weights and Measures Act and the Rules made thereu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f exemption Notification No. 5/2006- CE dated 01-03-2006 (Sl. No. 5) are not sustainable. The same are set aside. The appeals are allowed. Accordingly, the Id. Counsel prays for allowing the appeal. 8. The Id. A.R. for Revenue, Mr. D.K. Deb, relies on the impugned order. He further stated that as per the Show Cause Notice, it was stated by the manager of the appellant that they are not embossing any M.R.P. on the Footwear as their products are sold to the Government department. He further states that this statement has not been retracted at any stage. Accordingly, the appellants are not entitled to exemption Notification No. 5/2006- CE. 10. Having considered the rival submissions, we observe that the said observation and or state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
