2017 (12) TMI 1299 - AT - Central Excise

Benefit of N/N. 4/2006-CE dated 1st March 2006 - allegation against the noticee was that it had wrongly claimed the benefit of this notification which was patently limited to sales which the transaction of the assessee is not as it was provided to itself - whether self-consumption of manufactured goods would be tantamount to captive consumption, and consequently, whether a separate treatment is warranted for such transaction? - Held that - On a perusal of the exemption notification the benefit of which was availed by the appellant, it would appear that the disputed rate of duty applies to goods other than those cleared in packaged form . The goods cleared in packaged form are covered by sl. no. 1A of the said notification - benefit cannot be denied - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of exemption benefit under notification no.4/2006-CE dated 1st March 2006 for captive consumption.
- Interpretation of the term "captive consumption" in relation to Central Excise Act, 1944.
- Applicability of duty liability based on retail sale price for self-consumption transactions.
- Whether self-consumption of manufactured goods warrants a separate treatment.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with the appeal filed by M/s Ultra Tech Cement Ltd against the Order-in-appeal no.SR/274/NGP/2009 dated 23rd November 2009, which denied them the benefit of exemption under notification no.4/2006-CE dated 1st March 2006 for captive consumption of cement. The appellant had cleared their own final products, cement, for their own use during a specific period, claiming the duty liability was restricted as per the notification. The dispute arose when the department alleged that the appellant wrongly claimed the benefit of the notification, resulting in additional duty leviable on them.

The central issue revolved around the interpretation of "captive consumption" in the context of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appellant contended that captive consumption should not be treated as a sale, and hence, the retail sale price intended by the notification should not be applied to them. The appellant relied on various tribunal decisions to support their claim that the benefit of the notification should be available even for self-consumption transactions.

The Tribunal analyzed the scheme of the Central Excise Act, 1944 concerning captive consumption and duty liability. It was observed that captive consumption is a facility extended to manufacturers for using manufactured goods as inputs for further manufacture, subject to compliance with prescribed procedures. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned transaction of self-consumption did not fall under the category of captive consumption.

The Revenue's primary contention was that a separate entity is necessary for a sale to occur, and duty liability based on retail sale price was not applicable to self-consumption transactions. The Tribunal clarified that the notification under consideration was issued to prescribe effective rates of duty for specified goods and did not mandate the condition of sale, unlike notifications related to the computation of assessable value under a different section of the Act.

Ultimately, upon examining the exemption notification and the nature of goods covered, the Tribunal held that the benefit of the disputed rate of duty applied to goods not cleared in packaged form, which supported the appellant's claim for exemption. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.