MRP Stickers on Footwear Not Manufacturing; SSI Exemption Applies

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, ruling that the activity of putting MRP stickers on footwear did not amount to manufacture under the Central Excise Act. Additionally, the SSI exemption applied as the brand name owners were not identified, and the sales turnover fell within the exemption limit, leading to no duty demand. The Tribunal emphasized that without proof of brand ownership, the SSI exemption could not be denied, solidifying the decision to uphold the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the activity of putting MRP stickers on footwear amounts to manufacture under section 2f (iii) of the Central Excise Act.
2. Whether the SSI exemption is applicable when brand name owners have not been identified.

Analysis:
1. The appellant engaged in three types of trading activities involving branded shoes, unbranded shoes with their brand name, and shoes with other brand names. The dispute centered on the third type of trading activity where the appellant put their MRP stickers on shoes received in unit containers with other brand names. The Revenue contended that this constituted manufacture and demanded duty. The Additional Commissioner upheld the duty demand and imposed penalties. However, the Commissioner (appeals) reversed this decision, stating that putting MRP stickers on footwear, not containers, did not amount to manufacture under section 2f (iii). The Revenue appealed this decision. The Tribunal held that even if the activity was considered manufacture, the SSI exemption applied as the brand name owners were not identified by the Revenue, following precedent. As the sales turnover fell within the SSI exemption limit, no duty demand was warranted. Thus, the Revenue's appeals were dismissed.

2. The Commissioner (appeals) and the Tribunal also addressed the issue of SSI exemption eligibility when brand name owners were not identified. The Tribunal relied on precedent to determine that without proof of brand ownership, the SSI exemption could not be denied. As the appellant's sales turnover fell within the SSI exemption limit, the Tribunal concluded that even if the activity was classified as manufacture, the appellant would still be eligible for the SSI exemption. This further supported the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals.

---