TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 1548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anty, Member (J) and Ashok K. Arya, Member (T) Shri Amresh Jain, DR, for the Appellant. Shri Amit Jain, Advocate, for the Respondent. ORDER [Order per : Ashok K. Arya, Member (T)]. - Revenue is in appeal against the Commissioner s order dated 29-7-2010 where the demand of Central Excise duty on concessional rate items i.e. cement has been confirmed [without] giving benefit of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006. 2. The department contests the applicability of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 4/2006. The main argument of the Revenue is that the item cement has not been cleared to industrial and institutional consumers ; therefore the respondent is not entitled to the benefit of Notification N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use the cement for construction purpose or as raw material. Such buyers are covered by the definition of industrial consumer or institutional consumer under explanation to Rule 2A of PC Rules, 1977 and Rule 3(ii) of PC Rules, 2011. As per these provisions, commodity meant for industrial consumer or institutional consumers are not required to be affixed with MRP. Accordingly, the appellants have not declared the MRP on the cement bags and specifically have declared on the packages as Not for Retail Sale-meant for industrial consumer/institutional consumer/RMC consumption. They have discharged excise duty liability on such cement bags availing the benefit of Sr. No. 1C of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 as amended from tim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich is to the effect that no RSP requires to be printed on the goods sold to industrial/institutional consumers as defined under the rules framed under the Standards of Weights and Measures Act and that such goods would be covered under Sl. No. 1B or 1C of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. by virtue of the second proviso to the Explanation to Sl. No. 1C of the Notification as amended. The Board s clarification squarely covers the case in favour of assessee. 4.1 By following the decision in the case of M/s. Heidelberg Cements India Ltd. (supra) and the case laws cited by the respondent mentioned above, we reject the appeal filed by the Revenue as without merits. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
