2016 (12) TMI 24

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the Revenue: Sh. G. R. Singh, AR Present for the Respondent-assessee: Ms. Rinky Arora, Advocate Per: B. Ravinchandran: The Revenue is in appeal against order dated 29.06.2009 of Commissioner (Appeals) Delhi-II. The respondent-assessee are engaged in the manufacture of PVC Footwear. These footwear having sale value of less than Rs. 250/- per pair are liable to NIL rate of duty. The respo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....both the sides and perused the appeal records. 3. The issue involved is eligibility of the respondent-assessee for exemption under Notification No. 10/96-CE for blended EVA compound consumed by them in the manufacture of exempted footwear. The impugned order examined that the "factory" as defined under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 which means any premises, including the precinct....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4. We find the department contested the impugned order only on the ground that the premises are separated by quite some distance and as such cannot be considered as one factory since the respondent assessee did not apply for Central Excise registration, it cannot be presumed that they will be covered by a single registration. We find no force in the argument by the Revenue. Admittedly, as examin....