BATA INDIA LTD. Vs. CCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue involved in this appeal, filed by M/s. Bata India Ltd., is whether the benefit of exemption Notification No. 48/96 -CE dated 10.8.96 is available to foot bed insoles manufactured by them.

(2.) Shri M.C. Barua, learned Manager (Legal) of the Appellants, submitted that M/s. Bata India Ltd. manufacture footwear and component parts thereof; that the "footbed insoles" manufactured by them are component parts of footwear and are sent from their Faridabad factory to their Batagunj factory where they are used in the manufacture of footwear; that Notification No. 49/86 -CE exempts "all component parts of footwear, except soles, half soles, heels, and soles and heels combined"; that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected their appeal denying them the benefit of Notification on the ground that the insole is also a sole which is not covered under description of goods in Notification. He, further, submitted that initially the Assistant Commissioner had denied the benefit of the Notification under Order -in -Original No. 58/93 dated 28.7.93 which was remanded by the Commissioner (Appeals) under Order -in -Appeal No. 396/93 dated 23.11.93; that the Assistant Commissioner was specifically directed to examine the case after taking necessary market/trade enquiries; that they filed Certificates of various manufacturers and dealers in footwear and component parts wherein it was clearly certified that soles and insoles are two different and independent component parts of footwear and are also so treated and regarded in the footwear industry and there can be no scope to treat the two together as the same thing; that it was also certified therein that soles and insoles are separately bought and sold in the market and that no one in the trade ever treats insoles as parts of soles; that the Revenue has not produced any other evidence of any nature from trade/market; that it is well settled that in remand cases, the Adjudicating Authority has no jurisdiction to go beyond the specific terms of the remand Order as held in the case of Hyderabad Industries v/s. CC, : 1992 (62) ELT 751 and New India Sugar Mills Ltd. v/s. CCE,, 2000 (91) ECR 399. He also contended that since the correctness of these certificates has not been disputed, these cannot be ignored and brushed aside by alleging that these traders and manufacturers were not registered with the Central Excise Department; that in addition, they had also filed the affidavit from Shri Priti Bhusan Ghosh Dastidar, a Fellow of Institute of Materials (U.K.) who has also opined that sole and footbed insole are two complete different component parts of footwear and are differently known and dealt with in trade and commercial parlance. The learned manager mentioned that soles are those parts of footwear which are put at the bottom of the footwear and come in contact with ground whereas the gootbed insoles are fixed above the soles and below the uppers; that soles and in -soles perform different functions in footwear and insoles are incapable of being used as soles by themselves. He relied upon the decision in Agglomerated Marbles Ltd. v/s. CCE, : 2003 (152) ELT 22 (SC) wherein it has been held that when the Appellant produced evidence and material to show as to how the goods were known technically and commercially and when no negative material was produced in rebuttal by the Department, the order passed by the lower authorities against the assessee cannot be sustained. Reliance has also been placed on the decision in Hindustan Ferodo Ltd. v/s. CCE,, 1997 (89) ELT 16 (SC) and UOI v/s. Garware Nylons Ltd., 2003 (86) ECC 404 (SC) : : 1996 (87) ELT 12 (SC).

(3.) He, finally, submitted that no enquiry report on the issue involved has been relied upon by the Department; that the reliance by the Assistant Commissioner on Webster's Third International Directory (sic. Dictionary) is totally misconceived as the definition of sole given therein is not at all satisfied in respect of in -soles; that the sole itself may be in single piece or may be a combination of different layers and it is such soles which are referred to in the definition; that the definition nowhere mentions about insoles; that in the New International Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary of the English Language, the expression "sole" has been defined to mean "the bottom surface of a shoe, boot, etc. whereas the expression "insole" has been defined to mean "the fixed inner sole of a boot or shoe or removable inner sole placed without a shoe to improve its fit or as a protection against dampness"; that thus the said Dictionary meaning would also clearly indicate that the objects and functions of soles and insoles are completely different and these are different commodities.