2017 (11) TMI 1566

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te for the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The appeal is against Order-in-Appeal dated 15.5.2009 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of leather shoe uppers liable to central excise duty. They were mainly exporting the finished goods except for a small quantity cleared on payment of duty for sampl....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... ld. Counsel for appellant submitted that they could not elaborately submit with supporting documents in the earlier round of litigation as the company was closed. It is her submission that they have paid central excise duty on the rejected shoe uppers when the same are cleared as such. This much has been recorded in the first proceedings original order dated 11.3.2005. It was recorded that the as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ppellant did not come out with categorical evidence to support their claim that what is cleared is only cut scrap and not rejected shoe uppers which can be used for the purposes of shoes. He further drew our attention to some of the quotations and purchase orders which mentioned 'uppers rejected'. Based on this evidence, he reiterated that the Revenue is correct in determining the duty liability. ....