68 , [2023 ]2 SCR1147 , ,MANU/SC/0281/2023Krishna Murari#Sudhanshu Dhulia#22SC3020Judgment/OrderELT#INSC#MANU#SCRKrishna Murari,SUPREME COURT OF INDIAAccount#Agreement#Appeal#Appellate Tribunal#Assessment#Benefit#Claim#Commissioner of Central Excise#Company#Consideration#Cost#Date#Differential#Director#Duty#Error#Excisable Goods#Excise Duty#Factory#Factory Premises#Goods#Industrial Consumer#Information#Manufacture#Manufacturer#Notice#Notification#Officer#Order#Payment#Penalty#Polymer#Price#Printing#Process#Processing#Purchaser#Repeal#Sale Price#Service#Tax#Tribunal2023-3-2221651,21650 -->

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal Nos. 9569-70 of 2019

Decided On: 21.03.2023

Appellants: Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Kanpur Vs. Respondent: A.R. Polymers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Krishna Murari and Sudhanshu Dhulia

JUDGMENT

Krishna Murari, J.

1. The present appeals are directed against the final judgment and order dated 09.01.2019 passed by CESTAT, Allahabad in Order Nos. A/70266-20267/2019 -EX (DB) in Appeal Nos. E/70445/2017 and E/70618/2017, whereby the Respondent's plea was allowed.

FACTSs

2. Briefly, the facts relevant for the purpose of these Appeals are as follows:

I. The Respondent No. 1, M/s. AR Polymers Pvt. Ltd. is a manufacturer engaged in the manufacture of footwear and the sale of the same to defense/paramilitary forces in bulk for their use.
II. An intelligence was received by the DGCEI that the Respondent was availing benefits Under Notification No. 12/2012-CE : MANU/EXCT/0023/2012 dated 17/03/12 and Section 4(A) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which is limited to footwear sold in retail. The said notification wholly exempts the payment of Central Excise Duty for retail sale of footwear under Rs. 500/- and limits Central Excise Duty to 6% where the rate of the footwear is between Rs. 501/- to Rs. 1000/-.
III. Acting on the abovementioned intelligence, a team of DGCEI officers visited the factory premises of the Respondent, where it was found that the Respondent was manufacturing the footwear as per a contract entered into between the parties, and a rate for the sale and purchase of the footwear was fixed under the contract. It was also found that the Respondent was printing and attaching MRP stickers on the insole of the said shoes, only to avail the benefits of the abovementioned notification and Section 4(A) of the Act.
IV. A demand-show cause notice was issued to the Respondent on 05.02.2016 requiring them to show cause to the commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service tax.
V. Subsequently, the Ld. Adjudicating authority vide order dated 13.02.2017 passed an order against the Respondent holding that the benefit of the aforesaid notification does not extend to the footwear sold by the Respondent, and hence the Respondent was directed to pay the difference amount between the tax already paid and the tax which was liable to be paid. A penalty was also imposed on the director of the Respondent company.
VI. The Respon........