2003 (12) TMI 358

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... H.C. Verma, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. - In this appeal, the appellants have challenged the impugned order-in-appeal dated 20-6-2003 vide which the Commissioner (Appeals) has affirmed the order-in-original of the adjudicating authority who confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalty as detailed therein on the appellants. 2. The duty demand has been confirmed against the app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n the manufacture of footwears. The perusal of the record shows that they had taken out the disputed pairs from the factory for showing it to their different buyers for approval. As a general practice, one shoe from the relevant pair was retained in the Head Office and the second odd shoe was kept by the manufacturing unit in order to manufacture the footwears according to the said design and shap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Excise officers at the time of checking from that record. The odd pairs of shoes being neither fully finished nor marketable, could not be subjected to excisability. In Dharangadhra Chemical Works Ltd. v. Union of India - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 253, the Apex Court has observed "that the product even if covered by the Tariff entry will not be excisable to duty unless marketable". Apart from this, the du....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing the removal of the samples of the unfinished shoes by them. In Pushpam Pharmaceuticals Company v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, 1995 (78) E.L.T. 401, the Apex Court has observed that "where the facts are known to both the parties, the omission by one to do what he might have done and not that he must have done, does not render it suppression of facts". Therefore, the extended period of ....