TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd in the factory during the course of search. The argument raised by the appellant is that this condition cannot be viewed as a substantial condition for the benefit of the notification. She has argued that the substantial condition is that the exemption is applicable only to footwear which are of MRP less than ₹ 250/- per pair. The market enquiry conducted by Revenue has, in fact confirmed, that the MRP of the footwear manufactured and sold by the appellant is never more than ₹ 250/- per pair - the substantial condition of the notification is satisfied by the appellant and hence the benefit should be extended to them. The exemption in the present case is required to be extended to the appellant, in as much as the substan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the consent of both the parties, we hear the appeals on merit. 2. The present appeals are filed by the appellant against Order-in-Original No. 44/D-I/2015 dated 30/11/2015. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacturing of the footwear in its 4 factories. A search was conducted on 02/09/2011 at all the factory premises. On the basis of the seized materials and on the basis of the statements, the Department has made out a case against the appellant that he is not entitled for exemption of Notification No. 5/2006 (Sl. No. 5) dated 01/03/2006 where the footwear below the MRP of ₹ 250/- per pair are exempted. The benefit of the notification was subject to the condition that it is applicabl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the footwear has not been satisfied. She submitted that it is a fact which has emerged on verification that the footwear manufactured by the appellant were in fact sold at MRP not exceeding ₹ 250/- per pair. Accordingly, she submitted that the substantial condition specified in the notification regarding the MRP of the footwear has been satisfied in respect of goods manufactured by the appellant. Accordingly, it is her prayer that the benefit of the notification cannot be denied to the appellant. In this connection, she relied on several case laws including the following :- (i) Bombay Chemical Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bombay 1995 (77) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) ; (ii) Union of India vs. Suksha International Nutan Gems Anr. 1989 (39 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n fact confirmed, that the MRP of the footwear manufactured and sold by the appellant is never more than ₹ 250/- per pair. Accordingly, we are of the view that the substantial condition of the notification is satisfied by the appellant and hence the benefit should be extended to them. 9. In the case of Bombay Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the Apex court has observed as under :- 9. Item No. 18 which was added in 1978 grants exemption to the categories of goods which can be classified as insecticides, pesticides, weedicides or fungicides. They have to be understood in broad sense. The reasoning of the Tribunal that if an expression is capable of a broader and a narrower meaning, then it is the latter which could be preferred, does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cides or weedicides are understood both in the technical and common parlance as having broad meaning. Therefore, if any goods or items satisfy the test of being covered in either of the expression, then it is entitled to exemption. The broad and basic characteristic for exemption under the notification is that the goods must have the property of killing germs and bacteria insects or pest and it should be understood in the common parlance as well as being covered in one of the broad categories mentioned in the notification. Since the goods produced by the appellant are capable of killing bacteria and fungi which too, is covered in the expressions `pesticide and `fungicide there appears no reason to exclude the goods from the aforesaid noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
