TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 949X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Corporation Ltd. By indicating the price at which it was contracted. No case of revenue that respondent not required to declare the retail sale price on the supplied bags. Cement bags manufactured by the respondent not out of the purview of Standards of Weights and Measure (packed Commodities) Rules, 1977, as they were required to declare the RSP on the product. Authorities under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, informed all the respondents for mandatory declaration of retail sale price. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/2330/2010 - Final Order No. A/30775/2016 - Dated:- 14-7-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, C.S., Member(Judicial) and Mr. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member(Technical) Shri Ajay Kumar, AR for the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r claim. 2. The refund was sanctioned by Assistant Commissioner vide Order dated 20-10-2009. Aggrieved, the department filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), who vide order dated 30-07-2010 upheld the refund sanction order and dismissed the appeal. The department is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The main grounds of appeal preferred by the department are as follows:- 3.1 As per the Boards clarification dated 12-06-2008, the RSP is not required to be printed on the package if it falls under any one of the three categories mentioned therein. In the instant case, the sale is to M/s APSHCL which can be categorized as an industrial Consumer in as much at M/s APSHCL are buying the goods ie. Cement directly from the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010 (256) ELT 616 (Tri-bang) decided in favour of appellants and which decision, on appeal by department, the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the Civil appeal filed by department vide order dated 11-02-2011 as reported in 2011(271) ELTA16 (S.C). 6. Heard both sides and gone through the records of the case. The operative part of the Tribunal decision in Sagar Cement case is reproduced as under. 6 . We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. We find that while coming to the conclusion that the OIOs are not correct, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has recorded the following findings. I have carefully gone through the records of this appeal and the contentions put forth by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s declared. Once the two essential ingredients, namely, the sale of cement in packaged form and the availability of the retail sale price are satisfied, there is no reason why the concesional rate prescribed in the Notification in terms of Sl. No. 1 and 1A should not be extended. However, the lower authority has denied the benefit of the Notification based on the proviso to the Notification, which reads as Provided also that where the retail sale price of the goods are not required to be declared under the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 and thus not declared, the duty shall be determined as is in the case of goods cleared in other than packaged form . It is contended that the impugned goods are out of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s cannot be denied the benefit of concessional rate of duty as provided for in the Notification. 7. It can be seen from the above reproduced portion that it is not in dispute that the respondents indicated retail sale price on the bags. It is also seen that the requirement of not printing of the retail sale price is not applicable to the respondents, as the goods are sold to APSHCL by indicating the price at which it was contracted on each bag. It is also on record that there was no case of the Revenue that the respondents were not required to declare the retail sale price on the supplied bags. We concur with the views taken by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the cement bags manufactured by the respondents herein were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
