9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h. M. R. Sharma, AR - for the Respondent ORDER Per: V. Padmanabhan The present appeal is filed against the order -in-appeal No.27CE/APPL-I/DLH/2016 dated 18.04.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)-I, New Delhi. The period of dispute is 2008 to - February, 2010. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of lunch carry bag under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show cause notice in 2014 proposing to reclassify the goods manufactured under Chapter heading 4202 which covers various types of bags. The exemption under Notification No. 30/2004 (as amended) would not be available if the goods are classified under Chapter 42. The Department proceeded to demand duty from the appellant for the period 2008 to February, 2010 from the appellant. Aggrieved by the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to 01.03.2011 and hence, in the absence of benefit of Notification No. 30/2004 it will be the liability of the appellant to discharge the duty since the goods were manufactured and cleared bearing the brand name "Tupperware". 6. We have heard both sides and perused the record. 7. The goods i.e. bags for packing lunch boxes, have been manufactured and supplied with the brand name "Tupperware". ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, if he submits an undertaking to the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities to this effect. From the record, we see that such undertaking has been filed by the appellant but only w.e.f. 01.03.2011. There is no dispute that for the period after this date, the appellant has discharged the duty liability 9. We are of the view that since the duty liability is essentially on the manufacturer, i.e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
