TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n appeal as recorded by Bench is that the said Rain Commodities Ltd., has been formed to take up the activities of building houses for public and therefore is service institution and the clearance of the product is not on retail basis and is in terms of the agreement between the parties, there is no requirement of printing of MRP on the packages in which the product is packed; this factual aspect is noted by the Lower Authorities and being not disputed, the Bench held the benefit of Notification No.04/2006-CE is cannot be extended. Appeal dismissed. - E/797/2009, E/1675-76/2010 & E/2099/2011 - A/31763-31766/2017 - Dated:- 8-11-2017 - Mr. M.V. Ravendran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri Amar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m and the cement is sold. The assessee herein in respect of the cement cleared to Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited (APSHCL) discharged duty @400 per MT during the period, though the retail sale price of the goods did not exceed ₹ 190 per bag. Subsequently, noting the error of discharging excess duty, the assessee filed refund applications which were rejected by the Adjudicating Authority. On an appeal, the First Appellate Authority held that the entire crux of dispute is regarding interpretation of Notification No.04/2006-CE as amended and he held that the benefit of such Notification in terms of Sl. No.1 and 1A should be extended to appellant and it has to be held that Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mission that the said decision has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that an identical issue is decided by this Bench in the case of Sagar Cements Ltd., [2010 (256) ELT 616] wherein benefit of Notification No.04/2006 as been extended and the decision of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Apex Court as reported at [2011 (271) ELT A16 (S.C.)] 6. On careful consideration of submissions made by both sides, we find that the issue is no more res integra . It is clear the issue is regarding refund claim on a question whether the assessee has discharged excess Central Excise duty or other wise and if he has done so where he has eligible for credit. 7. Undoubte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the above reasoning and findings, we hold that the impugned orders are correct, legal and do not suffer from any infirmity. The appeals filed by the revenue are devoid of merits and are rejected. The said views of the Tribunal has been upheld by the Apex Court while dismissing by civil appeal filed after condoning the delay as reported [2011 (271) ELT A16]. 8. As regards the reliance placed by the Revenue on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Rain Commodities Ltd., which has also been upheld by the Apex Court while dismissing the civil appeal by Rain Commodities Ltd., we find that the judgment of the Tribunal was first of all the ex-parte order; facts, in appeal as recorded by Bench is that the said Rain Commodities Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
