Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (9) TMI 933 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

2016 (9) TMI 933 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD - TMI - Valuation - manufacture of Footwears falling under Tariff sub-heading No. 64041910 of CETA, 1985 - availment of benefit of Notification No. 6/2002-CE, dated 01-03-2002 - whether the goods manufactured were to be assessed under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944, and as provided under Chapter V of the Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977 or under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944. - Held that:- it is found that in the said N .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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. Enterprises and both the statements are relied upon documents for the issue .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

llant has fulfilled all the conditions required for availing benefits of the notifications stated in foregoing paras. We, therefore, hold that the three show cause notices dealt with in seven appeals in hand are not sustainable. Therefore, we set aside all the impugned orders by holding that for the period covered under the said show cause notices impugned goods were eligible for benefit of such Notification stated in the earlier paragraphs. - Decided in favour of appellant - E/1624/2007-EX(DB), .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

assessed under Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944, and as provided under Chapter V of the Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodity) Rules, 1977, there was no statutory requirement to declare the retail sale price, Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 was not applicable to them. The said Show Cause Notice also required the appellant to show cause as to why Central Excise duty amount into ₹ 1,25,52,459/- should not be demanded under the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excise Ac .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eptember 2006. The appellant contended before the Original Authority that in terms of the Notifications 3/2001-CE, 43/2001-CE, 6/2002-CE, 23/2004-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 s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

that the goods manufactured by the appellant were to be assessed under Section 4, and Section 4A was not applicable to them. He has also, further, held that the appellants were not statutorily required to print MRP on said goods and that the Footwears were not for retail sale since the same were sold in bulk to personnel as part of uniform. He further held that the footwears were supplied in wholesale and no retailing of the same was done and that the goods were not even sold but were freely dis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ice had a proposal of demanding Central Excise duty of ₹ 38,04,084 with proposal for equal penalty. There was proposal to impose of personal penalty on Smt. Nikita Gupta and Shri Shobhit Khandelwal. The appellants contended on similar grounds as stated above. The said show cause notice was adjudicated through Order-in-Original No. 02/Additional Commissioner/2008 dated 12/2/2008. Through the said Order-in-Original, the Original Authority has confirmed the demand and imposed penalty. Aggriev .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r, 2007, similar show cause notice dated 21.02.2008 for demanding Central Excise Duty of ₹ 24,71,477/- with proposal for personal property on Shri Shobhit Khandelwal and Smt. Nikita Gupta was issued. The said show cause notice was adjudicated through Order-in-Original No. 2/Joint Commissioner/2009 dated 15/3/2009 with similar findings. The appellant preferred appeal before Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who decided the said appeal through Order-in-Appeal No. 174, 175, 176/CE dated 27.7.2009, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tification No. 5/2006-CE dated 01.3.2006, wherein the appellants manufactured and sold Footwear having retail sale price not exceeding ₹ 125 per pair up to 8/7/2004 and ₹ 250/- per pair after 9/7/2004 and that the goods were eligible for exemption of whole duty of the excise leviable thereon and they have satisfied all the conditions required for availing of benefit of exemption in said Notification. They have, further, contended that it is settled principle of interpretation that an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t 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. Retail sale price was defined as maximum price at which excisable goods in the packed form may be sold to the ultimate customer and includes all taxes, and .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d for availing of benefit of said Notifications. He has taken us through the said Notifications and explanation about the sale retail price as stated in the said Notifications, the conditions of Notifications. He has prayed to allow the appeal. The ld. A.R. for Revenue has reiterated finding of the original authority and contended that the finding of the original authority and appellate authority in the impugned orders are tenable. 8. Having considered the rival contentions we find that in the s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version