TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (11) TMI 964
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The period of dispute under the present appeal is from January 05 and June 05 and March 2006. The footwear manufactured by the appellant is subjected to MRP based valuation under Section 4A of the Excise Act vide S. No. 55 of the Notification No. 2/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006. The footwear manufactured by the appellant are covered under the Third Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 vide S. No. 56. The appellant after manufacture of footwear remove the same to their various Regional Distribution Centres from where the footwear will be sold. At the time of removal from the factory to Regional Distribution Centre, the appellant pay duty based on the MRP declared on the footwear after reducing the ab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r from the factory. Personal hearing on this matter was conducted on 29-10-2007 wherein the appellants reiterated the submissions made in the reply. The jurisdictional Additional Commissioner after due process of law confirmed the demand of interest against the appellant on the following grounds :- (a) The appellant has raised supplementary invoices for the differential duty paid. (b) The value adopted at the time of original clearance is provisional in nature. (c) There is a short payment and the quantum of short payment is not known as finalization takes place between the appellant and their customer at a later date. (d) Definition of transaction value under Section 4(3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ying at the depot on account of increase in MRP. The differential duty was based on the differences between the MRP declared on the goods and the increased MRP affixed on the goods at the depot of the appellant itself. (2) The differential duty was paid on the stock that was remaining unsold at the appellant's own depot as on the date of price revision. The appellant, as stated above, had paid the excise duty on this difference in MRP, by TR-6 challan. The appellant, however, did not issue any supplementary invoice or any other invoices for this duty payment. (3) The appellant submits that the show-cause notice, Order-in-Original and the Order-in-Appeal are under incorrect presumption that the appellant had issued supplementary ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epacking of such goods in a unit container or labelling or re-labelling of containers including the declaration or alteration of retail sale price on it or adoption of any other treatment on the goods to render the product marketable to the consumer" (3) The appellant submits that the footwear are covered under the Third Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act vide S. No. 56 which reads as under : (4) The appellant further submits that as stated supra the footwear manufactured are subject to MRP based assessment vide S. No. 55 to Notification No. 2/2006-C.E. (N.T.), dated 1-3-2006 which reads as under :- "55. 6401 to 6401 The following goods namely :- (i) Footwear of reta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ugned order. It is not in dispute that the MRP for the impugned goods has been subsequently changed by the appellants and they have paid the differential duty on the enhanced MRP less abatement on their own. The argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that it will be unfair to levy interest on the differential duty is not without force as it is not a case where the appellants had initially marked the impugned goods deliberately with lower MRP. It is only from a subsequent period they have increased the MRP on similar goods and effected similar increase in respect of the impugned goods lying in stock in their depot. However, in similar cases where there was a price escalation and payment of differential duty on escalated price, the mat....