9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 1835 - AT - Central ExciseMethod of Valuation - cement manufactured by the appellant and cleared for their internal use, that is for repair and maintenance of plant and residential colony, within the factory premises for captive consumption in 50 kg pack to contractor (service provider) bearing the mark Not for the sale - to be valued under Section 4 (1)(b) read with Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, or under Section 4 A on MRP basis? HELD THAT - The issue is squarely settled in favour of the appellant assessee by the precedent judgment of this Tribunal in GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. (UNIT-I) VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., TRICHY 2008 (10) TMI 462 - CESTAT, CHENNAI where it has been held that We have found favour with the assessee‟s case in view of the clarification issued by the C.B.E. C, which is to the effect that no RSP is required to be printed on the goods sold to industrial/institutional consumers, as defined under the rules framed under the Standards of weights and Measures Act and that such goods would be covered under Sl. No. 1B or 1C of Notification No. 4/2006-CE, by virtue of the Second Proviso to the Explanation to Sl. No. 1C of the Notification, as amended. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues Involved:
Whether cement cleared for internal use within the factory premises for captive consumption is liable to pay duty under Section 4(1)(b) or Section 4A on MRP basis. Analysis: The primary issue in this appeal is the determination of the appropriate duty payment for cement cleared for internal use within the factory premises for captive consumption. The appellant contends that Central Excise duty should be paid under Section 4(1)(b) read with Rule 8 of the Valuation Rules, while the question arises whether duty should be levied under Section 4A on MRP basis. The Tribunal considered the precedent judgment in Grasim Industries Ltd. vs CCE, where it was established that goods cleared to industrial or institutional consumers are entitled to certain benefits under Notification No. 4/2006/CE. This notification exempts goods sold to industrial/institutional consumers from the requirement of printing RSP on the goods. The Tribunal found that the appellant's case aligns with the clarification issued by the C.B.E.C. and the provisions of the notification, thus ruling in favor of the assessee. In further support of the appellant's position, the Tribunal referenced the case of Heidelberg Cement India Ltd vs. CCE, Nagpur/Raigarh. The Tribunal highlighted that the Packaging Rules exclude packages meant for industrial or institutional consumers from certain provisions, regardless of the quantity of goods contained in the package. The Tribunal emphasized the disjunctive reading of the relevant clauses, indicating that the provisions of the Packaging Rules do not apply to such categories of packages. The Tribunal also noted that the challenge to the Grasim Industries case in the Supreme Court does not affect the applicability of the Rule in the present case. Therefore, based on the consistent application of precedent judgments by the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the appellant's position, ruling that the cement cleared for internal use within the factory premises for captive consumption is not liable to pay duty under Section 4A on MRP basis. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant notifications and the exclusion of certain categories of packages from the Packaging Rules, as established in previous judgments. The Tribunal's decision provides clarity on the duty payment requirements for goods cleared for internal consumption within factory premises.
|
