2014 (9) TMI 966

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Yashpal Sharma, DR, for the Respondent. ORDER The appellants have filed this appeal against Order-in-Original No. 48/Commr./CEX/IND/2008, dated 11-11-2008, in terms of which demand of Rs. 6,16,39,052/- has been confirmed along with interest and mandatory equal penalty. 2. The issue, briefly stated, involved in this case is whether the cement cleared to builders/contractors/industrial cons .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... CCE, Bangalore-II - 2010 (249) E.L.T. 398 (Tri.-Bang.). 4. We have considered the submissions of the appellants. As the issue is covered by judicial pronouncements, with the consent of both sides, we proceed to decide the appeal itself, waiving the pre-deposit. 5. It is seen that CESTAT in the case of M/s. Heidelberg Cement (India) Ltd. /M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur/Raiga .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , have also been denied the benefit available to industrial consumers. Further even if it is contended that the industries like M/s. Grasim Industries, Gwalior Chemicals, etc. did not use cement for producing excisable goods, they admittedly used the same for construction and would therefore qualify to be reckoned in the category of builders. Government also would qualify as institutional buyer. I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X