TMI Blog2016 (9) TMI 933X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale price exceeding ₹ 250 per pair w.e.f. 9/7/2004 and that the retail sale price was defined in the said notification as the maximum price at which the excisable goods in the packaged form are sold to the ultimate customers and the price to be the sole consideration for such sale. We also find that in show cause notice it is contended by Revenue that MRP was printed by M/s N.G. Enterprises on the goods itself intentionally to take the undue benefit of Notification just to evade Central Excise duty. Also it is stated that from the statements of Shri Vishal Gupta and Shri Pawan Chadha, it is confirmed that they had received the said Footwear in wholesale bulk quantity and no MRP was printed on the Footwears received from M/s N.G. Ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resent seven appeals are being decided together since the issue involved in all of them is the same but for the different periods. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, M/s. N.G. Enterprises, Kanpur, a non-registered proprietorship firm were engaged in the manufacture of Footwears falling under Tariff sub-heading No. 64041910 of schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellants informed the department through their letter dated 25/09/2006, that they were engaged in the manufacture of Footwears having value below ₹ 250/- per pair and were eligible to avail the benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-CE, dated 01-03-2002. Revenue conducted investigations and it appeared to Revenue that the appellant were misusin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4-CE, and 5/2006-CE claimed by them, for Footwears manufactured exemption was available provided following conditions were cumulatively satisfied by them: (a) The Footwear manufactured by them should have fallen under Tariff heading 64.01 till 22-08-2006, and post 01-03-2006, it should have fallen under Chapter 64. (b) The retail sale price of Footwear should not have exceeded ₹ 125 per pair till 9/7/2004 and post 9/6/2004 ₹ 250/- per pair. The said Notification had defined the retail sale price as maximum price at which the said goods are sold to be ultimate customers. (c) Post 9/7/2004, it was required that the retail sale price was to be indelibly marked or embossed on the Footwear itself. They claimed to satisf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 008 dated 12/2/2008. Through the said Order-in-Original, the Original Authority has confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. Aggrieved by the said order appellants preferred appeal against the said Order-in-Original dated 12/2/2008 which was decided through Order-in-Appeal No. 301,302,303-CE/2008 dated 04.07.2008, wherein the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the said Order-in-Original dated 12.2.2008, and rejected the appeals. The appellants have preferred appeal against said Order-in-Appeal dated 4/7/2008, before us which are bearing Appeal No. E/2310/2008 and E/2516/2008. 5. For the period from, April 2007 to September, 2007, similar show cause notice dated 21.02.2008 for demanding Central Excise Duty of ₹ 24,71,477/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d therein, that the findings of the department that they were required to be assessed under Section 4 and not Section 4A was travelling beyond the requirement of issue to be considered for examination of their eligibility for the benefit of said Notification. They further contended that there was no bar in a said Notification for supply of goods in bulk and that the only requirement for the availment of the benefit of the said Notification was that MRP of ₹ 125/- and that of ₹ 250/- should not be exceeded. They contended that the only condition of the notification was that the retail sale price of the footwear did not exceed ₹ 125/- per pair upto 08/07/2004 and from 09/07/2004 it did not exceed ₹ 250/- per pair. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t which the excisable goods in the packaged form are sold to the ultimate customers and the price to be the sole consideration for such sale. We also find at Para 5 of show cause notice it is contended by Revenue that MRP was printed by M/s N.G. Enterprises on the goods itself intentionally to take the undue benefit of Notification just to evade Central Excise duty. In the Para subsequent to the same, it is stated that from the statements of Shri Vishal Gupta and Shri Pawan Chadha both dated 05/12/2006, it is confirmed that they had received the said Footwear in wholesale bulk quantity and no MRP was printed on the Footwears received from M/s N.G. Enterprises and both the statements are relied upon documents for the issue of said show cau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
