TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (10) TMI 369
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of other person's brands with MRP declared and which are sold as such without any change of the MRP. This activity has been treated as pure trading activity not amounting to manufacture. The second type of trading is in respect of shoes which they get from shoe makers without brand name and without MRP. These shoes are received in Unit containers. In respect of these shoes, the respondent put their brand name "The Heels" and also MRP. Though this activity has been treated as manufacture in terms of section 2f (iii) of Central Excise Act, there is no duty demand in respect of these shoes because sales turn over such shoes is within SSI exemption limit and as such the show cause notice does not demand any duty in respect of the sale of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cated with option to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation. By this order, the amount of Rs. 25 lakh deposited by the appellant firm during investigation was also appropriated against duty demand of Rs. 15,01,845/- confirmed against it along with interest under section 11AB and also imposed penalty on Shri Amit Gupta as well as on the firm. On appeal being filed to Commissioner (appeals) against this order-in-original, the Commissioner (appeals) vide order-in-appeal dated 9/6/2010 allowed the appeal and set aside Additional Commissioner's order holding that the activity of the respondent of putting MRP stickers on the footwear and not on the containers of the shoes of different brand received from various dea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., pleaded that in respect of the brand name "Ben Sharman" and "Hitz", Shri Pawan Garg, proprietor of M/s. Garg Footwear in his statement dated 2/5/2008 has categorically stated that they were procuring the Ben Sharman and Hitz Brand shoes from M/s. Popsons International-Agra who were the manufacturers and accordingly it was pleaded that these brands belong to M/s. Popson International. It was, therefore, pleaded that the impugned order is not correct. 4. Shri J.P. Kaushik, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the respondent, pleaded that firstly, para 11, 12 and 13 of the show cause notice itself accepts that in respect of the packed shoes of other brand being received by the respondent, the MRP stickers were being put on the footwear and not on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to whether the SSI Exemption would be available, he supports the finding of the Commissioner (appeals) that the brand name owners have not been identified and hence, respondent cannot be said to be using the brand name of other persons and in this regard, he relies upon the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Ample Industries & Ors. Vs. CCE-Rajkot reported in 2007 (83) RLT 572 (CESTAT-Ahbad.) and in the case of CCE-Cochin Vs. Geo Engineering Works reported in 2004 (165) ELT 463 (Tri.-Bang.) wherein it was held that when the same brand name was being used by many manufactures and the statutory certificate of ownership the brand name of person who was alleged to be the owner thereof was not to be produced by the Revenue, it cannot be presu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ales turn over of such shoes during each financial year is within the SSI exemption limit. 7. The third type is of trading activity, which is the subject matter of dispute, involves purchasing of footwears in unit containers bearing brand name like Ben Sharman, Hitz, etc.. The shoes are received in unit containers with brand name declared on the containers but without any MRP. According to the department, in respect of these footwear, the respondent put their MRP sticker on the containers themselves. According to the respondent, the MRP stickers are put on the footwear and not on the container and in this regard, the respondent point out to para 11, 12 and 13 of the show cause notice from which it appears that the MRP stickers were being p....