Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (7) TMI 254

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appeals. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner has sustained the Order-in-Original dated 30.11.2016 wherein a demand against the appellant have been confirmed as under: (a) Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 7,83,544/- under Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short, Excise Act); (b) Excise duty along with cess amounting to Rs. 9,521/- under Section 11A of the Act; (c) Demand of interest at the applicable rate under Section 11(AA) (erstwhile Section 11B of Excise Act); (d) Imposed penalty of Rs. 7,93,066 under the provisions of Section 11AC of the Act read with Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 (for short Excise Rules); (e) Penalty of Rs. 5,000/- under Rule 27 of Excise Rules; (f) Penalty of Rs. 7,93,066 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ORE etc. and, therefore, the SSI benefit under the aforesaid notification was not applicable to the appellant. It was also found by the Department that the benefit of Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 is not available to the appellant as they are mixing the other ingredients in recycling waste and scrap of plastic. Under the above facts and circumstances, the case was adjudicated by the primary adjudicating authority confirming the demands, against the appellant (which was sustained by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), vide the impugned order. 3. Learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant submits that the learned primary adjudicating authority as well as learned Commissioner (Appeals) have travelled beyond the show cause notices .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s bore the same brand name is charge is not sustainable. Further, it was also submitted that the Department failed to adduce any evidence in the show cause notice that the said brands have acquired such reputation to be identified with person in whose name such brands are registered. The reliance was placed on the decision of Final Order No. 50068-50070 of 2019 dated 22.1.2019 of M/s J.N. Footwears Pvt. Ltd. and others Vs. CCE, New Delhi. 3.2 The learned Advocate also contended that the valuation has been arrived at Rs. 18 per sole or Rs. 36 per pair which is without any basis in view of the fact that this value was confirmed by the appellant. As per practice in the footwear industry the price is always quoted for pairs and not for piece. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... materials and the SSI benefit to the manufactured PVC soles by the appellant. It is apparent from the two Show Cause Notices and the Order-in-Original that the case has emanated from the searches made on 29.4.2011 on the various firms/companies including that of the appellant, which appeared to be the family concerns. A common Show Cause Notice has been issued to all of the units and their Director/proprietor, which has also been adjudicated by a common order-in-original, which is under challenge in this appeal. The appeal filed by M/s J.N. Footwears Pvt. Ltd. which was also in one of the party in the proceedings initiated by the Revenue has been decided by this Tribunal vide Final Order No. 50068-50070 of 2019 (supra), the said order it i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 94 dated 1.9.1994 has clarified the issue which favours appellant. We also draw support in above contention from the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Vee Ei Cee Industries Vs. CCE - 2013 (298) ELT 732 (Tri.-Del.). In this case the manufacturer was using 20% to 40% of fresh plastic along with plastic waste for manufacture of PVC granules. Further, we find that the department has also failed to produce that the appellant clandestinely removed goods by way of corroborative evidence as held in the case of CCE Vs. Juhi Alloys -2014 (302) ELT 487(All.), Continental Cement Company Vs. Union of India - 2014 (309) ELT 411 (All.) and CCE Vs. Kuber Tobacco India Ltd. - 2016 (338) ELT 113 (Tri.-Del.). Accordingly, we find that the impugned orde .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates