2023 (7) TMI 1110 - AT - Central Excise

Clearance of cement in 50 kgs bags - concessional rate of duty at Sl.No. 1C of the Rate Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 and Sl.No. 52 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 - denial of benefit on the ground that the buyers cannot be recognised as industrial or institutional customers. HELD THAT - Reliance placed in appellant own case ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, INDORE 2014 (9) TMI 966 - CESTAT NEW DELHI where it was held that CESTAT in the case of M/S HEIDELBERG CEMENT (INDIA) LTD AND M/S ULTRA TECH CEMENT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE 2014 (8) TMI 251 - CESTAT MUMBAI has clearly held that cement in 50 Kg bags sold to builders/developers qualifies as sales to institutional consumers and benefit of serial number 1C of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., is available to such clearances. The issue is no more res integra, therefore, the demand of duty is not sustainable against the appellant as the cement in 50 kgs bags sold to the above buyers qualifies as sale to institutional/industrial customers to avail the benefit of the above cited Notification. Thus, no demand is sustainable against the appellant - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue in this case involves the denial of the benefit of concessional duty rates to the appellant on clearances of cement to certain buyers who were deemed not to be industrial or institutional customers.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Denial of concessional duty rates to certain buyers

The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of cement, supplied cement to various customers for use in manufacturing activities such as construction. The appellant cleared the cement at concessional duty rates specified in the relevant notifications. However, the benefit of the said Notification was denied to the appellant on the clearances of certain buyers who were not recognized as industrial or institutional customers. The show-cause notices were adjudicated, and differential duty was confirmed along with interest and penalties.

Judgment:
The Tribunal considered the submissions and referred to previous judicial pronouncements, including the case of M/s. Heidelberg Cement (India) Ltd. & M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. The Tribunal observed that cement sold in 50 kg bags to builders/developers qualifies as sales to institutional consumers. It was noted that the buyers in question had used the cement for construction purposes, which qualified them to be considered as industrial or institutional customers. The Tribunal held that the demand of duty was not sustainable against the appellant as the cement sold to the buyers in question qualified as sales to institutional/industrial customers. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with consequential relief.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that the denial of concessional duty rates to certain buyers was not justified, as the cement sold to them qualified as sales to institutional/industrial customers. The impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed.