9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity has erred in sustaining the demand for the entire period of January 2011 to March 2013 in respect of footwear cleared from both the factories. The demand to be confirmed for the violation of the condition of the notification will need to be restricted to the clearance made from the appellant’s factory situated at T-I/110, Mangolpuri, Industrial Area, Phase – I, New Delhi, for the period upto 19.07.2012. For the purpose of re-quantification, the case is remanded back to the adjudicating authority - appeal allowed by way of remand. - E/53288, 53315/2014-EX[DB] - A/55456-55457/2017-EX[DB] - Dated:- 21-7-2017 - Mr. (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Mr. V. Padmanabhan, Technical Member Present Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e I, New Delhi, the officers found stock of footwear on which no MRP was embossed. Such stock of footwear was detained and subsequently seized. From the secret office of the group of companies, situated in Sarswati Vihar, Pitampura, New Delhi, printouts of data available in the computer regarding sale of footwear was take under panchnama and the statement of Shri Dharmendra Singh, employee was recorded. 3. On the basis of investigation, proceedings were initiated against the appellant on the ground that they are not entitled to benefit of notification in question, in as much as the footwear were not embossed with the MRP and as such the condition of notification requiring the footwear to be indelibly marked or embossed with the MRP was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the footwear without embossing the MRP. The adjudicating authority himself has recorded the findings in page 28 of the impugned order that the footwear manufactured by the appellant were of MRP less than ₹ 500. Hence, the substantive condition of the notification has been fulfilled by the appellant. Consequently, the non marking of the MRP has out passed the technical violation which should not be used against the appellant to create such demand. 6. Ld. DR supported the impugned order. He argued that the non marking of the MRP on the footwear cannot be considered as technical violation. The intention of the Government is to exempt excise duty on lower price footwear which is contingent upon indelibly marking the MRP thereon. He al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri, Industrial Area, Phase II, New Delhi were found to be embossed on the footwear without the MRP. Consequently, in respect of footwear made in this factory the condition of the notification admittedly has been fulfilled. Consequently, the demand in respect of footwear cleared from this factory is not sustainable. However, in respect of other factory of the appellant situated at T-I/110, Mangolpuri, Industrial Area, Phase I, New Delhi, Revenue concluded that the footwear were cleared without embossing of such MRP. The adjudicating authority has taken the view that non compliance of this condition specified in the notification no.12/2012-CE cannot be considered as a technical violation. We agree with this view, however, the non-complian ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
