Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Zuari Cement Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 26 May, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No. 20907 / 2014 Application(s) Involved: E/Stay/27955/2013 in E/27596/2013-DB Appeal(s) Involved: E/27596/2013-DB [Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 11/2013 dated 30/04/2013 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, TIRUPATI ] M/s Zuari Cement Ltd Krishnagar, Yerraguntla, KADAPA DIST 516311 (A.P.) Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax TIRUPATI No. 9/86-A, BEHIND WEST CHURCH COMPOUND, AMARAVATHI NAGAR, M.R.PALLI 517502(A.P.) Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. V. Raghuraman, Advocate 32, IST FLOOR, PATALAMMA TEMPLE STREET, NEAR SOUTH END CIRCLE, BASAVANGUDI, BANGALORE - 560004. For the Appellant Mr. Ganesh Havanur, A.R. For the Respondent CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI B.S.V.MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HON'BLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ________________________________________ Date of Hearing: 26/05/2014 Date of Decision: 26/05/2014 Per B.S.V.MURTHY Appellant is engaged in the manufacture of cement and cement clinker. The appellant cleared cement in bulk in container as well as 50 Kgs bags.
2. Issue involved in the present case is whether the consumers like Contractors, Apartment Builders, Developers, Construction Companies, etc. are classifiable as industrial / institutional consumers in terms of Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. It has been held that clearances to the said consumers would not be eligible to concessional rate of duty under Sl. No. 1C of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. dated 1.3.2006 during the period from October 2011 to March 2012.
3. As submitted by learned counsel, the issue as to whether builders, developers, construction companies, etc. are industrial / institutional consumers or not was considered by Honble High Court of Karnataka in the case of C.C.E. Vs. Mysore Cements Ltd. [2010 (259) E.L.T. 30 (Kar.) and this decision was not brought to the notice of the Commissioner. Further, he also submitted that while the Commissioner has accepted the fact that the appellant had produced declarations in respect of the industrial consumers, even though breakup had been given, amount has not been reduced while confirming the demand. On this ground, he requested remand of the issue at this stage itself and further, also submitted that this Tribunal in the case of very same appellant for different period in Final Order No. 25643 dated 12.7.2013 had remanded the matter at the stage of consideration of application for waiver of pre-deposit itself, we consider that in this case also, it would be appropriate to take a similar decision. Accordingly, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication after considering the precedent decisions of the various judicial fora and the submissions which may be made by the appellants. Needless to say that the appellants shall be given reasonable opportunity to present their case before final order is passed.
(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court) (S.K. MOHANTY) JUDICIAL MEMBER (B.S.V. MURTHY) TECHNICAL MEMBER /vc/