2016 (12) TMI 531 - AT - Central Excise

Cement exported to Nepal - RSP was not mentioned - Denial of benefit of Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 - Held that - The contents of the notification and of the table annexed therewith at Sr. No.1A and 1C are very clear that when the subject goods are not covered for declaration of retail price under Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, the benefit of the notification under Sr. No. 1A is not admissible for the subject goods; however, the goods where the retail sale price is not required to be cleared other than package form would be entitled to the benefit in this Notification No. 4/2006-CE (supra) under its S. No. 1C of the table attached. Therefore, by reading the description of excisable goods mentioned in Col. 3 at S. No. 1C of the table annexed to the subject notification, the appellant in respect of the goods exported to Nepal is entitled to the benefit of this notification. We find that CESTAT Delhi in the case of Prism Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bhopal 2015 (2) TMI 748 - CESTAT NEW DELHI decides the issue, where it was held that In terms of third proviso to Sl. No.1C of the table annexed to the Notification No.4/2006-C.E., where the retail sale price of the goods are not required to be declared under SWM Rules, 1977 and are not declared, the duty shall be determined as in the case of goods cleared in other than packaged form. Since, in this case the goods had been cleared for export to Nepal and as such there was no requirement to declare the MRP on the bags of the cement in accordance with the provisions of SWM Rules, 1977, the cement would have to be treated as other than packaged form even though the MRP had been printed and accordingly, we are of the prima facie view that the same would be covered by Sl. No.1C of the table annexed to the Notification No.4/2006-C.E., where the duty is 14% adv. or ₹ 400/- per M.T. whichever is higher. There is no dispute that if the duty is charged at the rate prescribed in Sl. No.1C of the table annexed to the Notification No.4/2006-C.E., there would be no short payment. Appeal allowed - benefit of notification allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Eligibility of benefit under Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 for goods exported to Nepal.

Analysis:
The appeal involved two appellants contesting against the Commissioner's orders confirming the demand for service tax and interest while denying the benefit of Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. The key issue revolved around the eligibility of the benefit under the said notification for goods, specifically cement, exported to Nepal. The appellants argued that their goods qualified for the benefit as per specific entries in the notification.

The Notification No. 4/2006-CE provided for different rates and conditions based on the classification of goods. The table annexed to the notification contained entries such as S. No. 1A and 1C, each specifying the description of excisable goods and the applicable rates. The critical aspect was whether the goods fell under the criteria outlined in the notification for availing the benefits.

The Tribunal analyzed the contents of the notification and the table attached to it, particularly focusing on S. No. 1A and 1C. It was established that if the retail sale price of the goods was not required to be declared under the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, then the benefit under S. No. 1A was not applicable. However, goods not requiring the declaration of retail sale price in packaged form were entitled to the benefit under S. No. 1C of the notification.

The Tribunal referred to a previous judgment by CESTAT Delhi in Prism Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bhopal, which provided clarity on the issue. The judgment highlighted that when the retail sale price was not required to be declared for goods exported, the duty should be determined as for goods cleared in other than packaged form. This interpretation aligned with the case at hand where cement was exported to Nepal without the need for MRP declaration.

Based on the precedents and the interpretation of the notification, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of both appellants, granting them consequential relief. The decision was in line with the reasoning presented in the Prism Cement Ltd. case, emphasizing the applicability of the benefit under S. No. 1C for goods exported without the requirement of MRP declaration.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found merit in the appeals and granted relief to the appellants based on the interpretation of the notification and relevant legal precedents, ultimately allowing the appeals with consequential relief.