9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1566X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es issued during the relevant period were for clearance of cut scrap of leather. However, it is a fact that some purchase orders / quotations did indicate ‘rejected uppers’ for intended purchase. Other than these, there is no evidence to show that the appellant did clear shoe uppers in the guise of scrap - There is no allegation in the proceedings before the lower authorities that the invoices whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te in the present appeal relates to the duty liability of the appellant for clearance of rejected / unusable cut components arising during the course of manufacture of the said leather uppers. The Revenue entertained a view that the appellants did not discharge duty when they cleared such rejected shoe uppers. The claim of the appellant that they have cleared the leather scrap in various forms whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs which are rejected and unusable. However, the lower authorities held that clear and coherent evidence was not produced by the appellant in order to categorically establish that what they have cleared without payment of duty is only cut scrap and not a shoe upper which can be used for such purposes, though rejected. The ld. Counsel further elaborated that all the invoices for clearance of leathe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. We note that the impugned order concluded on the duty liability on the appellant mainly emphasizing on the non-cooperation and also non-submission of categorical evidence by the appellant to establish their case of non-duty liability on the scrap cleared by them. We note that all the invoices issued during the relevant period were for clearance of cut scrap of leather. However, it is a fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
