9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1161X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udit) Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant is a manufacturer and trader of varied items including shoes. The shoes are manufactured either itself or on job work basis for paramilitary forces in terms of their contracts. The appellant is duly marking RSP on the shoes with indelible ink, which is not disputed by the department. Show cause notice dated 14.09.2016 was issued alleging that the footwear supplied by the appellant to Defence/paramilitary forces are without payment of appropriate Central Excise duty. It is case of the Department that the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 (Entry No.180) is not available to the appellant as the goods cleared are not inten ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Kanpur regional unit visited the factory premises of the Appellant. Statement of the production supervisor who was present in the factory was recorded under Section 14 of the Act. Another statement of Shri Ajay Agarwal, Secretary of the Appellant firm was recorded on 29.07.2016. Vide the Order-in-Original dated 17.01.2017, demand of differential duty of Rs.1,57,50,098/- was confirmed alongwith applicable interest and penalty of equal amount was imposed under Rule 25 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 read with Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Further, penalty of Rs.25 lakhs was also imposed upon Shri Ajay Agarwal, Secretary of the Appellant firm under Rule 26 of Central Excise Rules, 2002. On appeal before the First Appellate Auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to armed forces and paramilitary forces. The stand taken by the revenue is that since the goods were cleared to institutional buyers, provisions of Legal Metrology (Package Commodities) Rules, 2011 were not applicable in the present case and therefore, assessment should be as per provisions of Section 4 of Central Excise Act, 1944. Therefore, a demand was raised for differential duty and a penalty was imposed. We find that the appellant has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Panchkula Vs M/s Liberty Shoes Ltd. (supra). We note that the issue is no more res-integra and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- "12. Once we find that the footwear is an item which is specified under Section 4A, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
