9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w Delhi and at A-89, Mangolpuri, Industrial Area, Phase - II, New Delhi. 2. The officers of DGCEI searched the two units on 19.07.2012 and other connected premises on the basis of intelligence that the appellant were not paying Central Excise Duty as applicable to footwear. The appellant was found to avail the Central Excise notification no.05/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and the subsequent notification no.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. The notification granted exemption to footwear if the value of the footwear was below Rs. 250 or Rs. 500 as the case may be specified in the notification. The exemption was subject to the condition that retail sale price is indelibly marked or embossed on the footwear. During the course of search by the Departmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her, the penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs was imposed on Shri Abhishek Kedia, Director under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules 2002. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeals have been filed. 4. With the above background, we have heard Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant and Shri M.R. Sharma, DR for the respondent. 5. Arguing the case for the appellant, Shri Malhothra submitted as follows: i) During the search proceedings, footwear was found to be embossed with MRP in respect of the unit located at A-89, Mangolpuri, Industrial Area, Phase - II, New Delhi. Hence, there is no justification for demand of duty on the footwear manufactured and cleared there from. The demand has been raised on the combined sales figure of both the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no dispute on fact that the footwear manufactured in the two units are admittedly of MRP less than Rs. 500. The Ld. Adjudicating authority in the impugned order has already recorded the findings to this effect. Hence, the dispute ultimately boils down to compliance of the conditions of the notification specifying that the retail sale prices to be indelibly marked or embossed on the footwear itself. From the samples of footwear found during search at A-89, Mangolpuri, Industrial Area, Phase - II, New Delhi, such embossment was found to be done. However, in respect of other factory the goods found in stock were not having embossment of MRP. On the basis of the above evidence, Revenue has proceeded to demand excise duty on the footwear c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce brought on record by Revenue, there is no justification for sustaining the demand beyond the date of search i.e. 19.07.2012. 10. In view of the above discussions, we are of the view that the demand to be confirmed for the violation of the condition of the notification will need to be restricted to the clearance made from the appellant's factory situated at T-I/110, Mangolpuri, Industrial Area, Phase - I, New Delhi, for the period upto 19.07.2012. For the purpose of re-quantification, the case is remanded back to the adjudicating authority by setting aside the impugned order. The adjudicating authority will also decide on the question of penalty appropriately. Additional evidence may be admitted as per law and due opportunity should be e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
