2017 (9) TMI 1367 - AT - Central Excise

Cement sold in bags upto 50 kgs - N/N. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 as amended - requirement of RSP - whether the benefit of notification would be admissible to the assessees or otherwise? - Held that - similar issue decided 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 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of concessional rate of duty on cement supplied to industrial/institutional consumers.
2. Interpretation of third proviso to Explanation (2) of Notification No. 4/2006-CE.
3. Consideration of Tribunal decisions in similar cases.
4. Admissibility of benefit of notification to the assessees.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellants, cement manufacturers availing concessional duty rates under Notification No. 4/2006-CE. Two Show Cause Notices (SCNs) were issued proposing duty demands and penalties. The adjudicating authority confirmed a demand of differential duty and penalties. The appellants challenged this decision.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that the issue in both SCNs was identical, related to availing concessional duty for cement supplied to industrial/institutional consumers. The authority did not consider the case properly and relied on Tribunal decisions cited by the appellant, including the Grasim Industries Ltd. case. The Tribunal in the Grasim case had held in favor of the assessee regarding the benefit of the notification.

3. The Revenue contended that the third proviso to Explanation (2) of the notification was not applicable to cement sold in bags up to 50 kgs, as per the Standards of Weights and Measures Rules, 1977. The Revenue supported the findings of the impugned order.

4. After hearing both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal analyzed whether the benefit of the notification should be granted to the assessees. The Tribunal referred to the Grasim Industries Ltd. case and quoted a relevant portion of the decision. The Tribunal noted that the Legal Metrology Department's opinion was not in line with the benefit offered under the notification. By following the precedent decision of the Tribunal, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of applicability of concessional duty rates, interpretation of the notification provisions, consideration of relevant Tribunal decisions, and the admissibility of the benefit of the notification to the assessees, as addressed in the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI.