2017 (3) TMI 416

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ef facts of the case are that, as per the Show Cause Notice dated 29-01-2010, for the extended period 2005-06 to 2009-10, that on intelligence, the Revenue came to know that the appellants was not paying Excise duty though the value of clearances of shoes being manufactured, having sale value below at Rs. 250/-, (MRP) per pair was more than Rs. 1.00 crore in the Financial Year 2005-06, 2006-07 and Rs. 1.50 crore in the Financial Year 2007-08 and onwards. Accordingly, pursuant to inspection of the factory on 27-10-2009, the statement of the Manager - Kamal Kumar was recorded on the same date wherein, he stated that they are not registered with the Central Excise Department as their turn-over was well within the exemption limit, they are not ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly, it appeared to Revenue that the appellant is not entitled to SSI Exemption under Notification No. 8/2003- CE dated 01-03-2003, for the period/financial year, as it exceeded the specified turnover under the notification. 4. It further appeared to Revenue that the appellant has only removed under bulk clearance and there is no requirement of declaring the M.R.P. under the provisions of Standards of Weights & Measures Act. It, further, appeared that the appellant has fulfilled the SSI Exemption limit for the Financial Year 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-2009, but in Financial Year 2009-10 (till 20-10-2009), were well within the exemption limit, but under SSI Exemption notification as amended, exceeded the limit in Financial Year 2006-2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ghts Measures Act. Thus, the appellants are not eligible for benefit of Notification No. 5/2006- CE. It was also observed that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 5/2006-CE/ as the Footwears manufactured and supplied was not marked with 'indelible ink' as required in the exemption notification. 7. Being aggrieved the appellant is before this Tribunal. 8. The Id. Counsel for the appellant points out that this Tribunal, disposing off the batch appeals of other appellants against the Same common impugned Order-in-Appeal, have been pleased to allow the appeals vide Final Order No. A/50432-50442/2015-EX[DB] dated 11/02/2015 holding as follows: "There is no dispute that the shoes were supplied to Defence or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of Weights and Measures Act and the Rules made thereunder. In this case the Department has not recovered any consignment of shoes supplied to Defence organizations on which there is no MRP printed and as such there is absolutely no evidence that the appellants were not complying with this condition of exemption notification. In view of this just because the shoes were supplied to Defence organization, which according to the department are institutional buyers, it cannot be presumed that no MRP had been printed or embossed on the footwear. In view of this we hold that the impugned orders denying the benefit of exemption Notification No. 5/2006- CE dated 01-03-2006 (Sl. No. 5) are not sustainable. The same are set aside. The appeals are allow....