Challenged duty demand and penalty imposition on footwear marking appeal remanded for fair review

The appeal challenged duty demand, penalty imposition, and exemption conditions under Notification no. 5/06 regarding indelible marking on footwear. The appellant claimed the marking was indelible, supported by certificates from IIP and NTH. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority to reconsider based on the certificates, directing a fair review and independent testing option. The appeal was allowed by remand, emphasizing the importance of presenting all evidence for a fair determination. No pre-deposit was ordered, and the stay petition was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

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.

---