TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Challenged duty demand and penalty imposition on footwear marking appeal remanded for fair review</h1> The appeal challenged duty demand, penalty imposition, and exemption conditions under Notification no. 5/06 regarding indelible marking on footwear. The ... Duty demand - Printing of MRP with indelible ink on manufactured footwear - exemption vide Notification no. 5/06 dated 01.03.2006 - Held that:- Court directed the appellant to lead evidence regarding the quality of the material used for printing. The appellant in response to such direction has produced before us two certificates. One from the Indian Institute of Packaging (IIP) dated 28.02.2014 where the samples have been tested for Abrasion loss and Scuff Proofness. In the said certificate, it has been certified that on the test samples submitted by the client, testing has been done and no smudging was observed and the abrasion loss is 'nil'. Another sample was sent to the National Test House (NTH) at Mumbai and said certificate dated 27.02.2014 clearly records the test result as 'Fastness to dry rubbing for 10 cycles (Crock meter with abrading member of cotton cloth at RT) and 'visually, no colour fading observed and the printing is readable'. These two certificates indicate that the printing done by the appellant on the footwear was indelible and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the said exemption. However, these certificates have not been produced before the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority - matter has to go back to the adjudicating authority and the appellant is directed to submit the test results of the IIP and the NTH and on the basis of these certificates, the adjudicating authority shall reconsider the matter afresh and pass a speaking order after giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant of being heard - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues: Appeal against duty demand, imposition of penalty, exemption under Notification no. 5/06, indelible marking requirement, quality of material used for printing, certificates from Indian Institute of Packaging (IIP) and National Test House (NTH), remand to adjudicating authority.Analysis:1. The appeal challenged an order confirming a duty demand, interest, and penalty on the appellant for not meeting the conditions of exemption under Notification no. 5/06. The dispute centered on whether the retail price was indelibly marked on the footwear. The appellant claimed the marking was indelible, but the department disagreed based on a scratching test conducted during Panchanama proceedings. The Director of the firm supported the appellant's claim. The issue was whether the marking met the exemption criteria.2. During the hearing, the Tribunal directed the appellant to provide evidence regarding the quality of the material used for printing. The appellant submitted certificates from the Indian Institute of Packaging (IIP) and the National Test House (NTH) indicating that the printing was indelible. However, these certificates were not presented before the adjudicating authority or the appellate authority. The certificates showed no smudging, abrasion loss, and fastness to rubbing, supporting the appellant's claim of indelible marking.3. The Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remanded to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration based on the certificates provided by the appellant. The adjudicating authority was instructed to review the test results from IIP and NTH and issue a speaking order after giving the appellant a fair opportunity to present their case. The department was also given the option to draw samples for independent testing at NTH, Mumbai to determine the indelibility of the marking.4. As a result, the appeal was allowed by remand, and no pre-deposit was ordered due to the remand. The stay petition was disposed of accordingly. The decision highlighted the importance of providing all relevant evidence to the adjudicating authority and ensuring a fair opportunity for both parties to present their arguments before a final determination is made.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
