2019 (7) TMI 2007 - AT - Central Excise

Clearance of goods to institutional consumers such as builders, infrastructure companies and the goods were marked as not for retail sale - exemption under N/N. 4/2006 dated 01 March, 2006 - Ordinary and Pozzolana Portland Cement - It appeared to Revenue that since the goods were covered by notification issued under Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944, the appellants were not entitled to the benefit of said notification - HELD THAT - The issue is no more res integra and is covered by the decision of this Tribunal in M/S JAYPEE SIKANDRABAD CEMENT GRINDING UNIT VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE SERVICE TAX, NOIDA 2018 (3) TMI 1741 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD where it was held that The builder and construction companies qualify as institutional/industrial consumers, hence the benefit of the said Notifications would be available to the assessee. Thus, the appellants during the relevant period of present appeal i.e. from April 2011 to December 2011 were eligible for benefit of said notification - the impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues: Extension of stay of recovery, Entitlement to benefit of Notification No.4/2006, Determination of institutional consumers, Applicability of earlier Tribunal decisions.

Extension of Stay of Recovery: The judgment addressed a miscellaneous application for an extension of stay of recovery already granted through a previous order. Both parties consented to final disposal of the matter, as it was covered by a previous decision of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case.

Entitlement to Benefit of Notification No.4/2006: The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of cement falling under Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were clearing goods to institutional consumers and availing the benefit of Notification No.4/2006. Revenue contended that the appellants were not entitled to this benefit as the goods were covered by a notification under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Proceedings were initiated through a show cause notice, leading to the present appeal.

Determination of Institutional Consumers: The issue revolved around the entitlement of the party to benefit under specific notifications. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions where it was held that builders and construction companies qualify as institutional/industrial consumers, making them eligible for the benefit of the notifications. By following these precedents, the Tribunal held that the appellants were eligible for the benefit of the notification during the relevant period of the appeal.

Applicability of Earlier Tribunal Decisions: The Tribunal relied on its earlier decisions and case laws cited by the appellant to determine that builders and construction companies qualify as institutional/industrial consumers, entitling the appellants to the benefit of the notifications. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting the appellant consequential relief as per law.

In conclusion, the judgment granted the appellants the benefit of Notification No.4/2006 for the relevant period, set aside the impugned order, and allowed the appeal. The miscellaneous application for extension of stay of recovery was dismissed as infructuous.