2004 (10) TMI 381 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over the rate of duty applicable on cement cleared by the respondent.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 24/91-C.E. and Notification No. 1/93-C.E.
3. Correct application of Tribunal's Final Order No. 599/99-C.

Issue 1:
The appeal concerns the rate of duty applicable on cement cleared by the respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the classification approved by the respondents based on the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal's Final Order No. 599/99-C stated that there is no issue if the respondents avail of Notification No. 24/91-C.E. for cement cleared after a certain limit, even if they had availed of Notification No. 1/93-C.E. earlier. The Commissioner's decision was in line with this, leading to the rejection of the appeal by the appellant.

Issue 2:
The crux of the matter lies in the correct application of Notification No. 24/91-C.E. and Notification No. 1/93-C.E. The appellant argued that the Commissioner incorrectly applied the Tribunal's decision in M/s. Mamta Cement Co. v. CCE, Delhi. The appellant contended that the respondent started clearing cement under both notifications simultaneously before reaching the specified limit. This led to a discrepancy in the duty paid, which should have been under one notification only, not both. The Tribunal clarified that the assessee cannot benefit from both notifications for the same consignment, emphasizing the need to choose between them based on the clearance value.

Issue 3:
The dispute revolves around the correct application of Tribunal's Final Order No. 599/99-C. The Tribunal's ruling clarified that the assessee must opt for a particular notification when multiple notifications apply to the same issue. It was established that after reaching a certain clearance limit, the assessee could switch to a different notification for subsequent clearances. The Tribunal's decision reinforced that the same consignment cannot be assessed under both notifications simultaneously. Therefore, the Revenue's contention that the effective duty rate should not be a combination of rates from different notifications was upheld, aligning with the proviso in Notification No. 24/91. The appeal was decided in favor of the Revenue, emphasizing the need for the assessee to make a clear choice between the applicable notifications for duty assessment.