2018 (2) TMI 995 - AT - Central Excise

Valuation - Cement supplied to industrial/institutional consumers - concessional rate of duty - Department took the view that such packages would require the goods to be sold under RSP and hence provisions of section 4A of the Act will apply - Held that - reliance placed in the case of GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. (UNIT-I) Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., TRICHY 2008 (10) TMI 462 - CESTAT, CHENNAI , where it was held that no RSP requires 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 N/N. 4/2006-C.E. by virtue of the Second Proviso to the Explanation to Sl. No. 1C of the Notification as amended. There is no stay ordered by the Hon ble Supreme Court against the decision of M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. and decision in this case apply - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Concessional rate of duty availed by manufacturers of cement for selling in 50 kgs. bags to industrial/institutional consumers.
- Interpretation of provisions of section 4A of the Act regarding selling goods under RSP.
- Confirmation of differential duty, interest liability, and penalty by the Department.
- Applicability of past decisions favoring the appellants in similar cases.

Analysis:
1. The appellants, cement manufacturers, sold cement in 50 kgs. bags to industrial/institutional consumers, availing concessional duty rates. The Department contended that the goods should be sold under RSP, invoking section 4A of the Act, based on a clarification from the Controller of Legal Metrology, Chennai. Consequently, the Department confirmed differential duty, interest liability, and penalty against the appellants.

2. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel cited various precedents where similar issues were decided in favor of the appellants, establishing that the matter had been settled in their favor in multiple instances. The counsel highlighted decisions like Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy Vs M/s. Tamilnadu Cement Corporation Ltd. and M/s. Heidelberg Cement (India) Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, among others, to support their case.

3. On the contrary, the Department's representative supported the impugned order and mentioned that a previous decision involving M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. had been appealed and admitted by the Apex Court. However, upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal found that the matter was conclusively covered by the decisions cited by the appellant's counsel. Despite the Department's argument about the issue being taken to the Supreme Court, the Tribunal noted that there was no stay against the decision in question. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the impugned order could not be sustained and was set aside, allowing the appeal with any consequential benefits as per the law.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment emphasized the significance of past decisions favoring the appellants in similar cases and the absence of any stay from the Supreme Court against the relevant decision. This led to the setting aside of the impugned order and the allowance of the appeal, ensuring justice in line with established legal principles and precedents.