2018 (8) TMI 458 - AT - Central Excise

Requirement of Affixation of Retail Sale Price - sale of Cement to individual customer - whether the appellant are entitled for the concession vide notification No. 4/2006-C.E. dated 01.03.2006 (exemption entry S. no. 1C) in respect of cement supplied without affixing MRP to the customer sold directly by the appellant manufacturer to the said customer? - Held that - In the facts of the present case, the goods were sold directly by the appellant manufacturer to the customer and no retail agency or other intermediary is involved. Therefore, the sale does not fall under the definition of retail sale. In such a case, retail sale price is not required to be affixed - such supply is not covered by Exemption Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. dated 01.03.2006 (Serial no. 1C) read with 3rd proviso of the explanation of the goods given in the said notification. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Entitlement for concession under notification No. 4/2006-C.E. dated 01.03.2006 for cement supplied without affixing MRP directly to the customer.
2. Interpretation of "retail sale" under the Standards of Weights and Measure Act in the context of exemption eligibility.
3. Comparison of the present case with the decision in Diamond Cement v/s C.C.E., Bhopal 2017 regarding exemption extension.
4. Impact of the appeal by the revenue to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a similar case.
5. Consideration of the Tribunal's decision and its application to the current case.

Analysis:

1. The main issue in this appeal revolves around whether the appellant is entitled to a concession under notification No. 4/2006-C.E. dated 01.03.2006 for supplying cement directly to customers without affixing the maximum retail price (MRP). The department argues that such sales constitute retail sales requiring MRP, thus not eligible for the exemption.

2. The appellant's counsel argues that under the Standards of Weights and Measure Act, direct supply to customers without retail agencies or intermediaries does not qualify as a retail sale, hence MRP is not mandatory. Citing the case of Diamond Cement v/s C.C.E., Bhopal 2017, where a similar exemption was granted, the appellant contends for eligibility under S. No. 1C of the notification.

3. The Revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner, maintains the department's stance and highlights a similar case appealed to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, indicating a pending decision in Commissioner V/s Birla Corporation ltd 2018. However, the Tribunal notes that no stay was granted by the Supreme Court in that matter.

4. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal observes that the appellant directly supplied cement to customers without involving retail agencies or intermediaries, thus not constituting a retail sale as per the Standards of Weights and Measure Act. This interpretation aligns with the decision in Diamond Cement case and the principle laid down in Prism Cement Ltd. v. CCE, Bhopal, emphasizing direct sales without intermediaries for concessional duty rates.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal sets aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal and dismissing the cross-appeal by the Department. The decision is based on the precedent set by previous Tribunal rulings and the specific circumstances of the case, affirming the appellant's entitlement to the concession under the exemption notification.