TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1239
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned Counsel for the appellants and Shri M.R. Sharma, learned DR for the Revenue, we recall our earlier order dated 03/11/2017 (final order No. 57710-57713 of 2017), where the appeals were dismissed for non-prosecution for the reasons mentioned in the ROA. These ROAs are allowed and appeals are restored to its original numbers. With the consent of both the parties, we hear the appeals on merit. 2. The present appeals are filed by the appellant against Order-in-Original No. 44/D-I/2015 dated 30/11/2015. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacturing of the footwear in its 4 factories. A search was conducted on 02/09/2011 at all the factory premises. On the basis of the seized materials and on the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ackground, we heard Ms. Seema Jain, learned Advocate representing all the appellants as well as Shri M.R. Sharma, learned DR for Revenue. 6. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the Revenue's case is only that the condition of the notification regarding indelibly embossing the MRP on the footwear has not been satisfied. She submitted that it is a fact which has emerged on verification that the footwear manufactured by the appellant were in fact sold at MRP not exceeding Rs. 250/- per pair. Accordingly, she submitted that the substantial condition specified in the notification regarding the MRP of the footwear has been satisfied in respect of goods manufactured by the appellant. Accordingly, it is her prayer t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that this condition cannot be viewed as a substantial condition for the benefit of the notification. She has argued that the substantial condition is that the exemption is applicable only to footwear which are of MRP less than Rs. 250/- per pair. The market enquiry conducted by Revenue has, in fact confirmed, that the MRP of the footwear manufactured and sold by the appellant is never more than Rs. 250/- per pair. Accordingly, we are of the view that the substantial condition of the notification is satisfied by the appellant and hence the benefit should be extended to them. 9. In the case of Bombay Chemical Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the Apex court has observed as under :- "9. Item No. 18 which was added in 1978 grants exemption to the categories....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nstruction of exemption notification applies at the entry, that is, whether a particular goods is capable of falling in one or the other category but once it falls then the exemption notification has to be construed broadly and widely. Each of the words insecticides, pesticides, fungicides or weedicides are understood both in the technical and common parlance as having broad meaning. Therefore, if any goods or items satisfy the test of being covered in either of the expression, then it is entitled to exemption. The broad and basic characteristic for exemption under the notification is that the goods must have the property of killing germs and bacteria insects or pest and it should be understood in the common parlance as well as being covere....