TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant to discharge duty for the said goods is under the provisions of Section 4 or Section 4A? - Held that: - the appellants made categorical assertion, which is not rebutted with evidence, that they have never sold directly to any consumers, leave-alone, Institutional/Industrial consumers. All their sales are to dealers only. We find in such situation the exclusion made under Rule 2 A of P.C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, Member (Judicial) and Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Present for the Appellant : Mr.B.L.Narasimhan, Advocate Present for the Respondent : Mr.Amresh Jain, D.R. ORDER The appeal is against the order dated 19.11.2012 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore. The appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Tem Adhesive C liable to Central Excise Duty. The dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound the contention of the Revenue that the product is usable only by tyre re-treading industry and as such, cannot be covered under Section 4A as P.C. Rules will not apply to the impugned goods. It is the case of the appellant that they have never sold the impugned goods directly to any of the institutional/industrial consumers. All their sales were to/through their dealers only, who in turn s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o assess the impugned goods under the provisions of Section 4 on the ground that the product is of such nature, that can be used only by industrial consumer, namely, tyre re-treading units. This apparently is the only reason on which the assessment followed by the appellant in terms of Section 4A is sought to be varied. We find that the appellants made categorical assertion, which is not rebutted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that in the absence of such endorsement, it cannot be said that the goods are cleared for institutional/industrial consumers. The said decision of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in 2015 (319) ELT A-229 SC and has been followed in the other decision of the Tribunal in Nico Tiles v. CCE, Raigar, 2015 (315) ELT 296 (Tri.-Mum.) SPL Ltd. vs. CCE, Rohtak, Final Order No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
