TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iable under heading 4008.11 - the appellants are eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 18/95-CE dated 16.03.1995 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Excise Appeal Nos. 3610 - 3611 of 2010 - Final Order Nos. 55035 -55036/ 2016 - Dated:- 16-11-2016 - Dr. Satish Chandra, President And Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) Sh. B. L. Narasimhan, Advocate for the appellant Sh. Yogesh Agarwal, AR for the Respondent ORDER Per Ashok K. Arya 1. M/s Micro Rubber Industries Pvt. Limited and Shri S. K. Bajaj, Director are in appeal against the order dated 12.08.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) who sustained the order-in-original passed by Additional Commissioner whereunder the duty and penalty hav ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een used in the manufacture of heels, soles etc. for footwear. (ii) The appellants place reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Pololight Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Vapi 2009 (93) RLT 42 (Tri. Ahmd.) wherein the Tribunal inter-alia clarified the expression used in the manufacture of . (iii) The appellants further place reliance on the appellants own case decided by the Hon ble Tribunal vide Final Order No. A/54183-541-84/2014 dated 25.09.2014 relying on the decision of Pololight Industries (supra). The description of chapter heading 4008.11 itself mentions that subject goods which are used in the manufacture of soles. 4. Ld. AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the lower authority. 5. The matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pi 2009 (93) RLT 42 (CESTAT). Para 7 and 8 of the decision are particularly relevant and therefore are reproduced below:- 7. After appreciating the submissions made by both the sides, we note that there is no dispute about the fact that the clearances of the appellant s product, in majority of the cases, is to the manufacturers or to the persons who use it for the manufacture of heels, soles or heels and soles combined for footwear. The statements of the Managing Director, Executive and the Director of the company recorded during the course of investigation indicate to the above fact. We also note that the statement of the purchasers of the finished product sheets was also recorded during the course of investigations wherein some of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... defeat the entry. The same product, if actually used for soles and heels would earn its claim under heading 4008.21 and if not actually used would be ousted from the said claim. In our views the expression used in the manufacture of refers to the intended used of the goods or the ordinary use of the goods or the kind used in the manufacture of heels soles etc. The same is only description of the goods required to be classified under the said sub-heading and is not restricted to only those clearances of sheets which are ultimately actually used in the manufacture of heels, soles etc. The said expression is appearing under the column description of the goods and has to be held as relating to the goods which are of a kind used for the specif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re actually put to some other uses, other than the one specified against the entry. The Revenue s entire case is based upon only one fact that the appellant have not been able to show that the sheets have actually been used for the specified purposes. We note that there is no such requirement in the entry to produce any end used certificate for the purpose of claiming the coverage. In the absence of any such requirement in the tariff itself, such a condition cannot be introduced by the Revenue. Wherever legislature intended to grant benefit based upon the actual end use, proper guidelines stand prescribed. This establishes that insistence on end use certificate is not warranted when there is no such specific statutory requirement. As such, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
