2014 (9) TMI 136 - AT - Central Excise

Eligibility to concessional rate of duty under Sl. No. 1C of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. dated 1.3.2006 - 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 - Held that - 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. - 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 - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Classification of consumers as industrial/institutional under Legal Metrology Rules for concessional rate of duty eligibility.

Analysis:
The appellant, engaged in cement manufacturing, cleared cement in bulk and bags. The issue revolved around whether consumers like Contractors, Apartment Builders, Developers, and Construction Companies could be classified as industrial/institutional consumers under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. The judgment held that clearances to these consumers would not qualify for the concessional duty rate under Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. dated 1.3.2006 for the period from October 2011 to March 2012.

The learned counsel argued that a previous decision by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in a related case was not considered by the Commissioner. It was also highlighted that although the appellant had provided declarations for industrial consumers, the amount was not reduced while confirming the demand. Due to these reasons, a remand of the issue was requested at that stage. The Tribunal, considering the past decision involving the same appellant, waived the requirement of pre-deposit, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority for fresh consideration. The authority was directed to take into account the precedent decisions of various judicial fora and the submissions by the appellants, ensuring that the appellants have a fair opportunity to present their case before a final order is passed.