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

2015 (10) TMI 369

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 2F (iii). However, even if it is accepted that the MRP stickers were being put on the containers and not on the footwear and the activity amounts to manufacture, in our view, since the brand name owners of the brand names affixed on the containers had not been identified in the sense that the statutory certificate of the ownership of the brand name of the person who had been alleged to be the owner of the brand names have not been produced by the Revenue, in view of the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of CCE-Cochin Vs. Geo Engineering Works [2003 (9) TMI 237 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] benefit of SSI exemption cannot be denied. There is no dispute that the sales turn over of the third category of footwear along with the sales turn over o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s manufacture in terms of section 2f (iii) of Central Excise Act, there is no duty demand in respect of these shoes because sales turn over such shoes is within SSI exemption limit and as such the show cause notice does not demand any duty in respect of the sale of the shoes under the brand name Heels . The third type of trading activity involves purchase of shoes of different brands packed in unit containers. In respect of these shoes, according to the respondent, they put their own MRP sticker on the shoes instead of putting the MRP on the boxes. The department has treated this activity as manufacture which is not exempt under the SSI exemption (as the shoes bear the brand name of other person) and it is on the sale of these shoes that t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ioner (appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 9/6/2010 allowed the appeal and set aside Additional Commissioner's order holding that the activity of the respondent of putting MRP stickers on the footwear and not on the containers of the shoes of different brand received from various dealers in packed conditions would not amount to manufacture. He in particular, held that the provisions of section 2f (iii) with regard to declaration or altering of retail sale price would be applicable only when the MRP is declared or altered on the unit containers in which goods have been packed. Against this order of the Commissioner, Revenue is in appeal 1.2 The Commissioner (appeals) also accepted the alternate plea of the respondent that even if thei .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4. Shri J.P. Kaushik, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the respondent, pleaded that firstly, para 11, 12 and 13 of the show cause notice itself accepts that in respect of the packed shoes of other brand being received by the respondent, the MRP stickers were being put on the footwear and not on the containers of the footwears and when this is stated position in the show cause notice, the activity of the respondent would not amount to manufacture, as in terms of section 2f (iii), in relation to the goods specified in third schedule, packing or re-packing of such goods in unit container or labeling or re-labelling of containers including declaration or alteration of RSP on in it or any activity which would render the product marketable to the con .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ks reported in 2004 (165) ELT 463 (Tri.-Bang.) wherein it was held that when the same brand name was being used by many manufactures and the statutory certificate of ownership the brand name of person who was alleged to be the owner thereof was not to be produced by the Revenue, it cannot be presumed that the impugned brand name used by the assessee belongs to another person and benefit of SSI exemption can not be denied. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. The respondent are a partnership firm of which Shri Amit Gupta is a partner. They have two shops-one shop at Connaught Place, New Delhi and the other shop at Pitampura - New Delhi. They are engaged in trading activity. The trading a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... spondent put their MRP sticker on the containers themselves. According to the respondent, the MRP stickers are put on the footwear and not on the container and in this regard, the respondent point out to para 11, 12 and 13 of the show cause notice from which it appears that the MRP stickers were being put on the footwears and not on the containers. The Commissioner (appeals) has held that the MRP stickers were being put on the footwear and not on the containers, and therefore, this activity would not amount to manufacture under section 2F (iii). However, even if it is accepted that the MRP stickers were being put on the containers and not on the footwear and the activity amounts to manufacture, in our view, since the brand name owners of th .....

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