TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ambedkar Road; where labels were put on footwear so received, pair of shoes were packed in unit containers after such labeling, MRA declaration, logo, bar coating, after checking the footwear received. The shoes so labeled and packed were dispatched to Show Rooms all over for sale. The cobblers (karigars) would bill the appellants and the appellants in turn with mark up M/s. Metro Shoes Pvt. Ltd., a closely held private limited company. 1.2 With amendment to section 21F, with effect from 1-3-2003, the appellant applied for and took a registration in the name of the proprietary form and were paying duty, albeit under protest. Consequently the appellant, as submitted- started independent activities of manufacturing and trading and earma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g sold across the shelf and hence marketable. The labelling of the said goods by the Appellant or on his behalf does not either change the identity of the goods and/or its marketability. Despite this clear position and despite the fact that no labeling is put on the-containers, the Appellants has been paying duty under the provisions of the amended definition of manufacture on the insistence of the Excise Authorities. The Appellant also further submits that the Appellants receive the footwear and the labeling or relabelling viz. affixing of Metro brands is carried out only on the footwear and not on the boxes. Despite the fact therefore, assuming whilst denying that the amendment to the definition of manufacture as contained in the Fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) the various processes carried out by M/s. Metro Shoes (Unit-1) as mentioned in para 10(i) and (ii) of the Show Cause Notice should not be construed as manufacture under the amended definition of manufacture under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and liable to duty. (ii) the activity of affixing the brand labels on the footwear (not on the container and repacking the same in unit containers, as detailed in para 10(iii) of the Show Cause Notice should also not be construed as manufacture under the amended definition of manufacture under section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and liable to duty. (iii) the claim of the assessee of the payment made under protest should not be rejected. (iv) An amount of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct relevant in the facts herein reads as above would include the activity as carried on by the appellants as it is the appellants own case before us, as per para 3.2 of brief facts in this appeal, that goods in lease form (not packed) are received which are thereafter checked marked with MRP on the shoes as well as the logo brand code on the shoes and the box of the unit container for the pair. The Commissioner has also relied on the statements of Shri Sadiq. Ali Noorani, Depot Manager, as seen from para 8 of the order, which is clearly admitting the position of packing being effected of loose quantity of footwear being received. In this view of the matter, we find that the activity conducted in the premises, of this proprietary concern, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
