2007 (5) TMI 44

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....isputed demand of Rs. 5,42,00,010/- (Rupees Five crores forty- two thousand and ten) has been raised under Section l1D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 against the appellants who manufacture footwear falling under Chapter 64 of the Central Excise Tariff. The impugned period is from October 1992 to July 1996. The appellants have availed exemption in respect of footwear of value not exceeding specifi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts has been mainly based on the price-lists filed by the appellants indicating assessable value, excise duty and the cum-duty price. The learned Sr. Advocate, Shri J.P. Khaitan appearing for the appellants states that such price-lists were not filed only for exempted footwear but for all footwear manufactured by the appellants. He explains that it was relevant for the dutiable footwear to show the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and hence, the main ingredient to attract the provision of Section l1D was lacking in that case. He contends that in this case also, since no amount representing duty of excise was charged from the customers in respect of exempted goods, Section 11D has no applicability. 4. Heard the learned D.R. who supports the impugned order and states that from the break-up of the price it is clear that th....