w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Bhushan Bansal V/S CCE, Delhi - I


Company & Directors' Information:- BHUSHAN LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U27104CH1999PLC022266

Company & Directors' Information:- BANSAL CORPORATION LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1999PLC102216

Company & Directors' Information:- B. BANSAL AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U24246UP1996PTC020088

Company & Directors' Information:- BHUSHAN AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1981PTC011310

Company & Directors' Information:- BHUSHAN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74300DL1998PTC092538

Company & Directors' Information:- S BHUSHAN AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL1982PTC012943

Company & Directors' Information:- BANSAL AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74140DL2000PTC108131

    Excise Appeals Nos. 50211-50212, 50225-50226 of 2016, ROA Applications Nos. 51020-51021, 51018-51019 of 2017 (Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 44/D-I/2015 dated 30/11/2015 passed by The Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi I) and Final Order Nos. 50482-50485/2018

    Decided On, 31 January 2018

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi

    By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: DR. SATISH CHANDRA (PRESIDENT) & THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: V. PADMANABHAN
    By, MEMBER

    For Petitioner: Seema Jain, Advocate And For Respondents: M.R. Sharma, Authorized Representative (DR)



Judgment Text


1. After hearing both the parties, Ms. Seema Jain, learned 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 basis of the statements, the Department has made out a case against the appellant that he is not entitled for exemption of Notification No. 5/2006 (Sl. No. 5) dated 01/03/2006 where the footwear below the MRP of Rs. 250/- per pair are exempted. The benefit of the notification was subject to the condition that it is applicable only for such footwear on which the retail sale price is indelibly marked/embedded on the footwear itself. During the course of investigation, the Department came to the conclusion that the appellant had manufactured and cleared footwear without embossing the MRP on such footwear. Accordingly, Department was of the view that such footwear manufactured and cleared by the appellant will not be eligible for the benefit of the notification, for having failed to satisfy the condition specify therein.

4. The Department also carried out market enquiry about the price at which the such footwear manufactured by the appellant were being sold. It was concluded that the footwear were, in fact sold, at prices not above Rs. 250/- per pair. However, the Adjudicating Authority took the view that for failure to observe the conditions specified in the notification, the appellant cannot be extended the benefit of duty free clearance. Accordingly, duty was demanded by denying the benefit of the notification and the cash and also various goods seized during the course of the search was confiscated and allowed for redemption by payment of redemption fine.

5. With the above background, 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 that the benefit of the notification cannot be denied to the appellant. In this connection, she relied on several case laws including the following:-

(i) Bombay Chemical Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bombay : 1995 (77) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.);

(ii) Union of India vs. Suksha International & Nutan Gems & Anr: 1989 (39) E.L.T. 503 (S.C.).

7. The learned DR for the Revenue justified the impugned order. He argued that the benefit of the notification will not be allowable for the appellant in as much as the substantial condition specified in the notification to the effect that the footwear needs to be indelibly marked or embedded to the MRP has not been satisfied. He also relied in the case of Bata India Ltd. vs. Commissioner - 2009 (233) E.L.T. 381 (Tri. - Chennai) in which the imported goods on which only MRP sticker has been pasted on the footwear was even denied the benefit of notification.

8. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of record, we note that the substantial issue for consideration is whether the appellants are eligible for the benefit of the Notification No. 5/2006 (Sl. No. 5). The condition specified for the exemption to footwear of MRP less than Rs. 250/- per pair is that the footwear needs to be sold with the MRP embossed. During investigation, it stands established that the goods manufactured and cleared were never embedded with the MRP. In fact no embossing machine was found in the factory during the course of search. But the argument raised by the appellant is 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 of goods which can be classified as insecticides, pesticides, weedicides or fungicides. They have to be understood in broad sense. The reasoning of the Tribunal that if an expression is capable of a broader and a narrower meaning, then it is the latter which could be preferred, does not appear to be correct. Where entries are descriptive of category of goods they have certain characteristics. Therefore, when a question arises whether a particular goods is covered in any category or not, it has to be examined if it satisfies the characteristic which go to make it a goods of that category. And whether in trade circle it is understood as such and if it is a [good] of technical nature, then whether technically it falls in the one or the other category. Once it is found that a particular [good] satisfies the test, then issue which arises for consideration is whether it should be construed broadly or narrowly. One of the settled principles of construction of an exemption notification is that it should be construed strictly, but once a [good] is found to satisfy the test by which it falls in the exemption notification then it cannot be excluded from it by resorting to applying or construing such notification narrowly. Item 18 is an exemption notification. As stated earlier, it mentions broad categories of goods which are entitled to exemption. Once a [good] is found to fall even narrowly in any of these categories, there appears no justification to exclude it. The test of strict construction 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 covered in one of the broad categories mentioned in the notification. Since the goods produced by the appellant are capable of killing bacteria and fungi which too, is covered in the expressions 'pesticide' and 'fungicide' there appears no reason to exclude the goods from the aforesaid notification".
10. After going through the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and applying the same to the facts of the present case, we are of the view that the exemption in the present case is required to be extended to the appellant, in as much as the substantial condition of MRP of the footwear has been satisfied even though the condition regarding the indelibly embossing the MRP has not been satisfied.

11. We have also perused the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bata India Ltd. (supra) which has been cited by the learned DR for the Revenue. We note that in that case, the facts are pertaining to the imported footwear on which sticker of MRP was pasted on the footwear itself. In as much as the facts are different, we are of the view that we are required to follow the decision of the Apex court in the case of Bombay Che

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

mical Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 12. On perusal of record, we also note that the appellant has one factory where the shoe uppers have been manufactured which are captively consumed in the other factory in the manufacture of the footwear. We note that once the benefit of exemption is granted to the footwear, the benefit of captive consumption for shoe uppers cannot be extended. Consequently, the duty demand on the shoe uppers raised by the Adjudicating Authority needs to be upheld. Accordingly, Rs. 28,78,149/- is upheld alongwith interest and penalty of an equivalent amount. 13. In view of the above, the confiscation of currency as well as the goods seized during the course of search is also set aside alongwith the redemption fine. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the personal penalties imposed on various appellants are also set aside. 15. In the result, the impugned order is modified and appeals are partly allowed.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

15-04-2020 Bansal Infratech Synergies Limited Versus Gail India Limited High Court of Delhi
03-04-2020 Gaurav Kumar Bansal Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
16-03-2020 Sanjeev Kumar Bansal Versus M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Chennai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-03-2020 GBM Developers & Promoters P Ltd., Through its Director, Subhash Bansal, Chandigarh Versus Col. Sukhwant Singh Saini National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-03-2020 S.K. Bansal Versus HUDA National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-02-2020 Chandra Bhushan Shukla Versus Surmila (Dead) & Another High Court of Chhattisgarh
07-02-2020 Bibhuti Bhushan Sahu V/S State of Chhattisgarh Through-Police Station-Ganj, District- Raipur (C.G.) High Court of Chattisgarh
07-02-2020 Devendra Bansal Versus National Insurance Company Ltd. & Another Madya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bhopal
06-02-2020 Bank of India V/S Bhushan Gupta And Sons and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Delhi
05-02-2020 Ravi Bansal Versus Bengal Unitech Universal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
28-01-2020 Chandeshwar Saw Versus Brij Bhushan Prasad & Others Supreme Court of India
22-01-2020 Devaraj Bharath Bhushan Versus K. Moorthy & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-01-2020 Haryana Urban Development Authority Versus Bindu Bansal & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-01-2020 Sanjila Bansal Versus M/s. Omaxe Chandigarh Extension Developers Private Limited & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
05-12-2019 State of NCT of Delhi Versus Shiv Charan Bansal & Others Supreme Court of India
04-12-2019 Shubham Bansal Versus The State (Govt of NCT of Delhi ) & Another High Court of Delhi
19-11-2019 Bharat Bhushan Versus Kamal Singh High Court of Punjab and Haryana
18-11-2019 M/s. Meenakshi Industries, Rep. by its Partner, Salil Bansal, Villupuram Versus The Assistant Commissioner of (CT) Villpuram – II Assessment Circle High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-11-2019 Bhushan Mallik Versus State of Karnataka by Mico Layout Police Station High Court of Karnataka
11-11-2019 Prince Bansal Versus M/s. Mercedes Benz India Private Limited & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-10-2019 Bhushan Kumar & Another Versus Kameshwar Dayal High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
17-10-2019 Gujarat Gas Limited Versus Richa Kamlesh Bansal Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Ahmedabad
10-10-2019 Samaj Bhushan Griha Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Versus Shankar (since deceased through legal heirs) & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
09-10-2019 Sudesh Kumar Bansal Versus Ajay Saini & Others High Court of Delhi
25-09-2019 State of Punjab Versus Jai Bhushan Malik & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
17-09-2019 Sanjay Bansal Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others High Court of Chhattisgarh
16-09-2019 For the Appellant: Brijesh Sahai, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Nirvikar Gupta, Pradeep Kumar Chaurasia, Rajesh Pratap Singh, Advocates. For the Respondent: Govt. Advocate. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
13-09-2019 Bharat Bhushan Versus State of Punjab & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
26-08-2019 Naresh Bansal Versus State (GNCTD) & Others High Court of Delhi
14-08-2019 Jagjit Singh @ Jagjit Singh Ahluwalia @ Jagjit Singh Walia @ J S Ahluwalia @ J S Walia Versus Rajesh Bansal & Others High Court of Punjab and Haryana
05-08-2019 Jarnail Singh Versus Bansal X-Ray Centre Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh
05-08-2019 Kashish Country Resort Pvt. Ltd. Versus M/s. Bansal Sales Corporation High Court of Delhi
10-07-2019 Kusum Bansal Versus Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board & Another Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Panchkula
03-07-2019 Vimla Bansal Versus M/s. Unitech Limited National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-06-2019 Ankit Sarda Versus Nukul Bansal High Court of Sikkim
31-05-2019 In the Matter of: Anupama Bansal Versus Suraj Bhan Bansal & Another High Court of Delhi
29-05-2019 Bharat Bhushan Vaid Versus State of H.P. & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
09-05-2019 Rishi Pal Gupta & Another Versus M/s. N.H. Matcon Through its Partner Sunny Bansal & Another Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Chandigarh
06-05-2019 Deepak Aggarwal Versus Nidhi Bansal & Another High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwailor
18-04-2019 Ashutosh Bansal Versus Birla Institute of Management & Technology & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
12-04-2019 Sanjay Bansal Versus M/s. Vipul Ltd. (Formerly Known As Vipul Infrastructure Developers Ltd.) & Another Supreme Court of India
11-04-2019 O.P. Bansal Versus Union Bank of India High Court of Delhi
04-04-2019 Sandeep Bansal & Another Versus Niharika & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
18-03-2019 Pratap Narain Verma Versus Bharat Bhushan Gupta & Another High Court of Delhi
25-02-2019 Gaurav Kumar Bansal Versus Dinesh Kumar & Others Supreme Court of India
19-02-2019 Shashi Bhushan Pandey Versus Laxmi Prasad Baiswade High Court of Chhattisgarh
07-02-2019 Piyush Bansal Versus Dr. S.K. Tewari & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
06-02-2019 Chandra Bhushan Prasad Madhukar Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
30-01-2019 Dr. Manish Bansal Versus State of Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
30-01-2019 Vimala Bhushan Versus The Authorised Officer Yes Bank Limited & Others High Court of Karnataka
15-01-2019 Shashi Bhushan Kumar Versus State of Jharkhand High Court of Jharkhand
10-01-2019 Mosmat Sushila Devi Versus Chandra Bhushan Chaudhary High Court of Judicature at Patna
04-01-2019 Chandra Bhushan Prasad Versus The Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Communications and IT, Department of Post, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
04-01-2019 Chandra Bhushan Prasad Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary To the Govt. of India, Ministry of Communications & IT, Department of Post, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
20-12-2018 Dineshbhai H. Makwana Versus Bhushan Umeshbhai Vyas National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
23-11-2018 Shankunthala Bansal & Others Versus Puspalatha Gadia & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-11-2018 Tript Rajinder Singh Bajwa Versus Chander Bhushan Singh High Court of Punjab and Haryana
12-10-2018 Bidhu Bhushan Karmakar, Assistant Commissioner (in Situ), CGST & Central Excise Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
03-10-2018 Rajesh Bansal & Others Versus CCE, Indore Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
25-09-2018 Shashi Bhushan Versus State of Haryana High Court of Punjab and Haryana
20-09-2018 Punjab National Bank Versus M.L. Bansal High Court of Delhi
06-09-2018 Pradipkumar Shivprasad Bansal Versus State of Gujarat High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
29-08-2018 Punjab State Electricity Board Versus M/s. Megh Raj Bansal, Govt. Contractor And Suppliers & Another Supreme Court of India
14-08-2018 Rajesh Bansal Alias Montu Versus State High Court of Delhi
14-08-2018 Bhushan Malik Versus State (Government of NCT of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
07-08-2018 ICICI Bank Ltd. Versus Brij Bhushan Aggarwal & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-07-2018 Christian Louboutin Sas Versus Ashish Bansal & Another High Court of Delhi
16-07-2018 Ravinder Kumar Bansal & Others Versus Pankaj Gupta & Others High Court of Himachal Pradesh
12-07-2018 DDA Versus Bansal Traders High Court of Delhi
11-07-2018 Bhushan Lal Khanna Versus State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) High Court of Delhi
06-07-2018 Shanti Bhushan Versus Supreme Court of India Through Its Registrar & Another Supreme Court of India
21-06-2018 Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-IV V/S Bhushan Power & Steel Limited Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal East Zonal Bench Bench, Kolkata
18-06-2018 The State of West Bengal & Others Versus Dr. Rahul Bansal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
14-06-2018 Bhushan Versus The Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
05-06-2018 Siya Bansal & Another Versus Securities Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhavan SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
04-06-2018 Dr. Pramod Pitamber Ambodkar Versus Dr. Vidya Bhushan Sutawane Maharshtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Nagpur
28-05-2018 Anand Bhushan & Others Versus Union of India High Court of Delhi
28-05-2018 Vandana Bansal Versus State of U.P. & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
23-05-2018 DIG (ADM) ITBP & Others Versus Mala Bansal & Others High Court of Delhi
11-05-2018 Bhushan Aggarwal and Others V/S CC, New Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal New Delhi
11-05-2018 Bhushan Aggarwal, M/s. Bhatinda Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. & Others Versus CC, New Delhi Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
04-05-2018 Bhushan Dattatrayay Kedar & Another Versus Dipti Bhushan Kedar & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
04-05-2018 Ashish Bansal & Others Versus State of Haryana & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
06-04-2018 Siya Bansal & Another Versus Adjudicating Officer, Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan, Bandra (East), Mumbai & Another SEBI Securities Exchange Board of India Securities Appellate Tribunal
02-04-2018 VUSB Bhushan Kumar Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary, Mining Department & Others In the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad
26-03-2018 Bibhuti Bhushan Patra Versus Orissa Small Industries Corporation Ltd. High Court of Orissa
12-03-2018 Jai Bajrang Traders Versus Vishal Bansal High Court of Orissa
07-03-2018 Vidya Bhushan Rawat Versus Union of India Through the Chairman & Others Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi
01-03-2018 Prashant Vinodkumar Bansal Versus The Estate Officer & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
01-03-2018 Chander Bhushan Versus State High Court of Delhi
02-02-2018 Shashi Bhushan Prasad Versus Chief Post Master General & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-01-2018 Vishwa Bhushan Bharti Versus District Magistrate, Union Territory, Chandigarh High Court of Punjab and Haryana
25-01-2018 N.C. Bansal Versus Uttar Pradesh Financial Corporation & Another Supreme Court of India
25-01-2018 Subhash Chander Bansal Versus Gian Chand & Others Supreme Court of India
08-01-2018 Puneeet Sharma Versus Brij Bhushan Bansal & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
02-01-2018 Ravi Bhushan Seth Versus Meena Seth Alias Meena Kumari High Court of Jharkhand
14-12-2017 Ravi Bhushan Kumar {dead}, through L.Rs. & Others Versus Life Insurance Corporation of India & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
14-12-2017 Naveen Kumar Gupta Versus Bharat Bhushan & Others High Court of Delhi
15-11-2017 Amar Bhushan Prakash Versus Chairman, Bajaj Allainz Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
07-11-2017 Sangeeta Bansal & Another Versus The State of NCT of Delhi & Others Supreme Court of India


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box