9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 81X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09 - Final Order No. 54067/2016 - Dated:- 7-10-2016 - Shri S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Shri Amit Jain, Advocate for the appellant Shri Yogesh Agarwal, Authorized Representative (DR) for the respondent ORDER Per. B. Ravichandran The appeal is against order dated 29/1/2009 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur II. The appellant are engaged in the manufacture of cement and clinker liable to Central Excise duty. They were clearing cement in 50 kg. bags on contracted price to various contractors, builders, factories etc. They were discharging Central Excise duty in terms of Sl. No. 1A of Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 01/3/2006 on such clearances. The cement bags wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale, it cannot be treated as RSP in terms of the said notification. It was concluded that the RSP printed on the cement bags based on which duty was paid was not falling within the definition given in the said notification for paying duty. We find that the Original Authority is correct in arriving at such conclusion as the contract price does not include the octoroi, commission to the dealers and other elements which will necessarily have to form part of the RSP as per the definition given in the notification. The RSP on the basis of such contract price is not the RSP as defined in the notification. Accordingly, the concessional duty as applicable under Sl. No. 1A is not available to the appellant. 3. However, after arriving at the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the statutory definition of retail sale under Rule 2 (q) of the PC Rules. Even otherwise, the various decided cases have examined the scope of institutional and industrial consumers. Reference can be made to decisions of the Tribunal in : (i) Heidelberg Cement (India) Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 2015 (315) E.L.T. 53 (Tri. Mum.) ; and (ii) Ultratech Cement Ltd. vs. CCE reported in 2015 (317) E.L.T. 505 (Tri. Del.). We find the Original Authority did not record any reason to reject the claim of the appellants for concession under Sl. No. 1C of the above-mentioned notification. 5. In view of the above discussion and analysis, we find it fit and proper to set aside the impugned order and to remand the matter to the Original Autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
