2008 (12) TMI 562 - AT - Central Excise

Cement - Exemption under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. - Held that - the very same issue as in the present case came up for decision in the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. v. CCE Trichy 2008 (10) TMI 462 - CESTAT CHENNAI holding that the goods in question would be covered under Sl. No. 1B or 1C of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. by virtue of the Second Proviso to the Explanation to Sl. No. 1C - benefit allowed - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. regarding duty on cement.
3. Applicability of the Second Proviso to the Explanation of Sl. No. 1C of the Notification.
4. Comparison with precedent orders of the Tribunal.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal considered an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 7,21,16,027 along with an equal penalty. However, it was decided that the appeal could be disposed of immediately as the dispute was already covered by a precedent order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal itself was taken up for final hearing.

2. The duty was demanded from the appellants concerning cement cleared in 50 kg bags to institutional/industrial consumers under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. The Notification prescribed a specific rate of duty for goods falling under SH 2523.29 of the CETA Schedule. The subject goods were held not to be covered under a specific provision of the Notification due to the appellants' cement plant not meeting the defined criteria. This led to a dispute regarding the correct classification and duty rate applicable to the goods.

3. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving a similar issue where it was held that the goods in question would be covered under a specific provision of the Notification by virtue of the Second Proviso to the Explanation. Additionally, the Tribunal relied on a clarification issued by the Board to support its decision. Based on this interpretation, the benefit of the notification was deemed admissible to the assessee in the present case.

4. In line with the precedent decision and subsequent cases, including one involving Dalmia Cements, the Tribunal concluded that the benefit of the notification should be granted to the assessee. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant. This decision was made following a thorough analysis of the relevant legal provisions and precedents established by the Tribunal.