COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DELHI Vs. HEELS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading to filing of these appeals by the Revenue are, in brief, as under:

(2.) SHRI J.P. Kaushik, Advocate, ld. Counsel for the respondent, pleaded that firstly, para 11, 12 and 13 of the show -cause notice itself accepts that in respect of the packed shoes of other brand being received by the respondent, the MRP stickers were being put on the footwear and not on the containers of the footwears and when this is stated position in the show -cause notice, the activity of the respondent would not amount to manufacture, as in terms of section 2f(iii), in relation to the goods specified in third schedule, packing or re -packing of such goods in unit container or labelling or re -labelling of containers including declaration or alteration of RSP on in it or any activity which would render the product marketable to the consumers would amount to manufacture; that from the language of section 2f(iii), it is clear that with regard to the declaration of MRP or alteration of the MRP, the same should be on the unit container in which the goods had been packed, while in the present case, the MRP sticker was put on the footwear and not on the boxes containing the footwear.

(3.) WE have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records.