TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 869X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Decided in favor of the assessee - E/472-473/2010, E/629-631/2009 , E/488-489 & 21-23/2010 - A/241-250/KOL/2011 - Dated:- 28-7-2011 - S/Shri M.V. Ravindran, Mathew John, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Sanjoy Kantawala and Sumanta Biswas, Advocates, for the Assessee. Shri B.B. Agarwal, Jt. CDR, for the Department. [Order per : M.V. Ravindran, Member (J)]. By this common order we propose to dispose off all the following appeals as the issue involved is the same and in respect of the same assessee. Appeal No. Appellant/Respondent Impugned Order No. date 629/09 Sreeleathers 32 de novo dated 28-8-2009 630/09 H.S. Chatterjee Do 631/09 Satyab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d boxes which are unit containers and special design was made as per the specifications of the assessee. (ii) After receiving the footwear and checking it for quality (returned if found defective) a bar code is generated from the printer. (iii) The container (card board) the footwear is put which is as per design and prices as decided by the assessee. (iv) MRP is printed on the footwear as well as on the card board boxes, as per direction of the assessee and is to be seen suppliers need not affix the price with reference to MRP. (v) Suppliers have nothing to do with the MRP, and stamp MRP is put, at their individual units and they sold footwears to the noticee at negotiated prices. 3.2 It is his submission that, on read ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g of bar code does not amount to re-labelling or adoption of any treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer. He would rely upon the judgment of Rafique Mallick v. Commr. of C.E., Mumbai-I reported in 2006 (193) E.L.T. 200 (Tri-Mumbai). 5. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. Undisputed facts are that the appellant assessee here is a trader of footwear. The appellant assessee directs the suppliers (about 300 different individual cobblers) for supply of footwear as per the Appellant s specification, directs them to declare MRP and supply the footwear in packed conditions. It is also undisputed that when the goods are received by the appellant assessee, they do not do any fu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ident from the fact that they purchased the footwear from individual suppliers on negotiated prices to deliver the same to the appellant in boxes with printing of MRP on boxes and footwear, description in the form of code etc. 7. In our considered view the affixing the bar code would not amount to any activity which will attract the mischief of provisions of Section 2(f)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. As it is common knowledge that the bar code is nothing but optical machine readable representation of the data which shows certain data on certain products. It is also common knowledge that bar codes can be read only by optical scanners, called as bar code readers using special software. Affixation of bar code on the goods does not gi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per para 3.2 of brief facts in this appeal, that goods In Lease (SIC) 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, would come under the mischief of the amended Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944 to call for levy of duty. (b) the reliance of the ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judicating authority s promptness and prerogative to decide and dispose of the cases by a reasoned order wherein binding precedents are available, cannot a bone of contention or grounds of appeal either oral or written to assail an order. Suffice to say, that this would amount hindrances in imparting quick justice, we do not find anything wrong in the impugned orders wherein revenue is in appeal. 11. At this juncture ld. Counsel submits that the appellants have been directed to deposit 50% of the duty in cash and the balance 50% as bank guarantee and prays to direct the lower authorities to release bank guarantees and seeks the indulgence of this Tribunal for refund of the amount of the duty paid. We find that this prayer of the ld. Couns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
