9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue is that since the goods were cleared to institutional buyers, provisions of Legal Metrology (Package Commodities) Rules, 2011 were not applicable in the present case and therefore, assessment should be as per provisions of Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. HELD THAT:- The issue is no more res-integra and the Hon ble Supreme Court in CCE, Panchkula Vs M/s Liberty Shoes Ltd. [ 2015 (12) TMI 1159 - SUPREME COURT] has held that Once we find that the footwear is an item which is specified under Section 4A, which is covered by Weights and Measures Act and Rules, and MRP was fixed on the products supplied, which were not exempted under Rule 34 of the Rules, the provision of Section 4A of the Act shall stand attracted. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued alleging that the footwear supplied by the appellant to Defence/paramilitary forces are without payment of appropriate Central Excise duty. It is case of the Department that the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 (Entry No.180) is not available to the appellant as the goods cleared are not intended for retail sale. In terms of the aforesaid notification, footwear of retail sale price not exceeding Rs.500/- per pair are fully exempted from payment of Central excise duty and footwear of retail sale price of Rs.501/- to Rs.1,000/- attract Central Excise duty @6% adv, provided MRP/RSP is embossed or indelibly marked on the footwear itself. It is further alleged that for payment of Central Excise duty, the appellant is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty of equal amount was imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further, penalty of Rs.25 lakhs was also imposed upon Shri Ajay Agarwal, Secretary of the Appellant firm under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. On appeal before the First Appellate Authority, both the appeals were disallowed. Hence, the present appeals before this Tribunal. 3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there is no dispute with regards to the printing of RSP on the shoes and on the outer final packaging of the shoes. Shoes are notified under Notification No.49/2008-CE (NT) dated 24.12.2008 (Sr. No.56) for valuation of RSP basis. It is his submission that there i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that the appellant has relied upon the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Panchkula Vs M/s Liberty Shoes Ltd. (supra). We note that the issue is no more res-integra and the Hon ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- 12. Once we find that the footwear is an item which is specified under Section 4A, which is covered by Weights and Measures Act and Rules, and MRP was fixed on the products supplied, which were not exempted under Rule 34 of the Rules, the provision of Section 4A of the Act shall stand attracted. 6. We find that retail sales price was embossed on footwear supplied to Arm Forces and Paramilitary forces. Therefore, by respectfully following the judgement of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
