Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

Century Cement vs C.C.E., Raipur on 28 September, 2016

        

 
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi



COURT-I



 Date of hearing:16.9.2016

Date of pronouncement: 28/09/2016

 

 Central Excise Appeal No.165   of 2009

 

Arising out of the order-in-original No.Commissioner/RPR/86/2008 dated 10th October 2008  passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chhattishgarh.



Century  Cement								Appellant

  

Vs. 



 C.C.E., Raipur		 				..		Respondent

Appearance:

Shri Sanjay Grover, Advocate for the appellant Present Shri R.K. Manjhi, A.R. for the Respondent/ Revenue Coram: Honble Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President Honble Mr. B. Ravichandran, , Technical Member Final Order No. Per B. Ravichandran:
The appeal is against the order dated 10.10.08 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of cement and clinker liable to central Excise duty. The dispute in the present appeal is the eligibility of appellant to the concessional rate of duty on cement, in terms of Serial No.1C of Notification No.4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. The said entry in Notification stipulates that where retail price of goods are not required to be declared under Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, and thus not declared the duty shall be determined as in the case of goods cleared in other than packaged form. The appellant cleared cement to various bulk consumers, institutional /Government/Semi-Govt./Public Sector Undertaking/ Builders/contractors etc.. The appellant claimed duty rate in terms of the above of the above entry in the Notification. The Revenue objected to the same on the ground that the said bulk consumers are not to be considered as institutional consumer/industrial consumers in terms of Explanation under Rule 2A of the above said Rule.

2. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant and the ld. A.R. for Revenue and perused the appeal records. We find that matter is no more res integra as this issue has been decided by the Tribunal in more than one case. Reference can be made to the decision of the Tribunal in Ultratech Cement Ltd. vs. C.C.E., Indore - 2015 (317) ELT 505 (Tri-Del.). The Tribunal after referring to various already decided cases in favour of the assessee held that clearance to various builders, Government and other institutions who used the cement for various purposes including constructions are eligible for the rate as per Entry No.1C mentioned above. We note in the present case also that it is not the case of Revenue that RSP is required to be printed on bags for such sale in terms of requirement of legal metrology

3. Regarding the cement clearance not being made directly from the factory to the industrial customers, we note that there is no specific instance of any diversion or misuse of such clearance to institutional buyers from depot. In such a situation, the denial cannot be based on such allegation.

4. Considering the decisions of the Tribunal on same set of facts, we find no merit in the impugned order .We accordingly set aside the same. The appeal is allowed.

(Pronounced in the open Court on 28/09/2016).

(Justice Dr. Satish Chandra) President (B. Ravichandran) Technical Member scd/ 2