2018 (12) TMI 851 - AT - Central Excise

Clearances to various Institutional consumers or industrial consumers - concessional rate of duty - N/N. 04/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 (Serial No. 1C) - Held that - Issue decided in appellant own case M/S AMBUJA CEMENT LIMITED, SAURASHTRA CEMENT LIMITED, GUJARAT SIDHEE CEMENT LIMITED VERSUS C.C.E. & S.T. BHAVNAGAR 2018 (12) TMI 487 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD , where it was 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 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Whether the appellant is entitled to a concessional rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 04/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 (Serial No. 1C) for clearances to various Institutional consumers or industrial consumers.

Analysis:
The issue in this case revolves around the entitlement of the appellant to a concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 04/2006-CE for clearances to institutional or industrial consumers. The appellant's counsel argued that the matter had been settled in a previous Tribunal order and cited the case of Ultratech Cement Limited vs. CCE & ST, Bhavnagar. On the other hand, the Revenue representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

Upon careful consideration of the arguments presented by both sides, the Tribunal found that the issue had already been settled in the appellant's own case as well as in various other cases. Referring to a previous order, the Tribunal highlighted that the definition of retail sale needed to be examined before determining the nature of the sale. It was noted that direct sales to consumers without marking of RSP did not qualify as retail sale, as per the statutory definition requiring sale through a retail sale agency or other instrumentality for consumption by an individual. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was not legally sustainable and set it aside, allowing the appeal.

In light of the previous order and the established legal principles regarding retail sales, the Tribunal found no justification to uphold the impugned orders. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The issue was deemed settled based on the Tribunal's previous ruling, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment showcases how the issue of entitlement to a concessional rate of duty under a specific notification was resolved based on legal interpretations and precedents established in previous cases.