2018 (12) TMI 487 - AT - Central Excise

Clearance of Cement to various industrial organizations/ industrial consumer - concessional rate of duty denied - N/N. 4/2006 dated 01.03.2006 - Held that - Identical issue adjudication has come up before the Tribunal in the case of Diamond Cement vs Commr. of Central Excise 2017 (1) TMI 1476 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that the sale to the individual without any intermediary person is entitled for concessional rate of duty - benefit allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Concessional duty claim for Cement under Notification No. 4/2006
- Qualification of buyers under Rule 2A of Standards and Weights and Measure Rules
- Interpretation of 'retail sale' under Rule 2(q) of PC Rules
- Legal sustainability of the impugned orders

Concessional Duty Claim:
The appellants, engaged in Cement manufacturing, claimed concessional duty under Notification No. 4/2006 for clearance to industrial organizations/consumers. Proceedings were initiated as buyers were found not qualifying under Rule 2A of Weights and Measure Rules. The Tribunal referred to past cases and held that direct sales to consumers without marking of RSP do not meet the criteria for 'retail sale.' Citing precedents, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals.

Buyers Qualification under Rule 2A:
The issue of buyers' qualification under Rule 2A of Weights and Measure Rules was central to the case. The Tribunal noted that direct sales to consumers without RSP marking did not fulfill the criteria for 'retail sale' as defined in the rules. The Tribunal emphasized the need for sales through retail sale agency or other instrumentality for consumption by an individual to qualify as 'retail sale.' Consequently, the impugned orders were deemed legally unsustainable and set aside.

Interpretation of 'Retail Sale':
The Tribunal's analysis focused on the interpretation of 'retail sale' under Rule 2(q) of the PC Rules. Direct sales of Cement to consumers without RSP marking were found not to meet the statutory definition of 'retail sale.' The Tribunal highlighted the requirement for sales through intermediaries or retail sale agencies for transactions to qualify as 'retail sale.' Relying on previous judgments, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned orders were not justified and therefore set aside.

Legal Sustainability of Impugned Orders:
After considering the arguments and precedents, the Tribunal found no reason to sustain the impugned orders. Following the principles established in earlier cases, the Tribunal held that the impugned orders were not legally sustainable. Consequently, all three appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside.