9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 90X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ffidavit of their customers indicating that the goods stand used by them in the manufacture of soles or heels or both, thus establishing the use of the goods leading to the consequential relief in terms of the Notification. It is seen that Revenue has not produced any contrary evidence to the effect that the goods were not used as soles or heels for footwear. As such, even if the goods manufactured by the appellant are held to be sheets, the same would be exempted in terms of N/N. 3/2005-CX. While considering an identical Notification, Tribunal observed that in the absence of any material on record to suggest that goods cleared by the assessee were not used for making heels and soles for footwear and even if the buyers used the goods for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rances, the benefit of Small Scale Exemption Notification was sought to be denied to them. Further certain goods lying in the assessee s factory were also seized. On the above basis the proceedings were initiated against them for confiscation of the said goods as also for confirmation of duty of Excise to the tune ₹ 6,75,109/- on the alleged ground that the goods manufactured by the appellant are not blocks but sheets. The said proceedings resulted in passing of an order by the Original Adjudicating Authority confirming the demand alongwith confirmation of interest and imposition of penalty of ₹ 4,47,659/-. Further the seized goods were confiscated with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have any description of blocks and in such a scenario the goods stand described by them as sheets. He further clarifies that the Revenue s reference to the billties drawn by the transporter showing the goods as sheets are irrelevant inasmuch as the transporter has described the goods in the said documents, according to his own understanding. 6. Dealing with the said contention of the learned advocate, we note that admittedly the appellants have shown themselves as manufacturer of the Blocks under their name mentioned in the tax invoices. The description of the goods stands shown as 40 sole P A-1. This is just sample of the description in one of the invoices. The descriptions mentioned in other invoice are also in the same manner, thou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the use of the goods leading to the consequential relief in terms of the Notification. It is seen that Revenue has not produced any contrary evidence to the effect that the goods were not used as soles or heels for footwear. As such, we are of the view that even if the goods manufactured by the appellant are held to be sheets, the same would be exempted in terms of Notification No.3/2005-CX. 9. At this stage, we may take note of the Tribunal decision in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida vs. Rahul Rubber Pvt. Ltd. 2004 (167) E.L.T. 50 (Tri.-Del.). While considering an identical Notification, Tribunal observed that in the absence of any material on record to suggest that goods cleared by the assessee were not used for mak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
