https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355818 Footwear sold below the specified MRP qualified for exemption under Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. even though the MRP was not indelibly embossed, because market verification showed the substantive eligibility condition was met and the embossing lapse was only procedural. The exemption was therefore allowed and the demand founded on its denial was set aside. However, the exemption did not extend to shoe uppers manufactured in one unit and captively consumed in another, so the duty demand on shoe uppers was sustained. Once the footwear exemption was accepted, confiscation, redemption fine and personal penalties were not maintainable on the remaining facts and were set aside. en-us Wed, 31 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Mar 2019 14:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355818 Footwear sold below the specified MRP qualified for exemption under Notification No. 5/2006-C.E. even though the MRP was not indelibly embossed, because market verification showed the substantive eligibility condition was met and the embossing lapse was only procedural. The exemption was therefore allowed and the demand founded on its denial was set aside. However, the exemption did not extend to shoe uppers manufactured in one unit and captively consumed in another, so the duty demand on shoe uppers was sustained. Once the footwear exemption was accepted, confiscation, redemption fine and personal penalties were not maintainable on the remaining facts and were set aside. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 31 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=355818