9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y stated facts are that for the period upto August 2004 the appellants manufactured phosphoric acid and have engaged M/s N.S. Shetty as their contractor; the contractor collects the slush from chute, transports the same to yard where it is levelled and further transports to buyers. The contractor was issued work orders from time to time stating the quantity and the rate. All transportation, loading, levelling etc, within the factory was taken care of in the said rate. The appellants used to enter into sales agreement with the cement companies on an as-is-where-is-basis. The said agreement specifically stated that the transportation, loading and unloading would be by the customer. 2.1 Since 2002, Excise authorities took the view that the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd agreed upon by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. Supreme Petro Chem Ltd. - 2009 (240) ELT 38 (Tri.LB). 2.3 The only charge that was made during the impugned period i.e. August 2004 to October 2006 was that the gypsum was no longer sold to the cement manufacturers but was sold by the appellants to the contractor himself on as-is-where-is-basis. The contractor further sold the cement to the buyers i.e. cement companies. The department has again issued five show-cause notices covering the period August 2004 to October 2006 for aggregating the amount of Rs. 21,53,355/- while proposing to levy penalty. The show-cause notices were confirmed by the Asst. Commissioner vide different orders dated 31.08.2006 and March 2007. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perused the records. 6. We find that as submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the appellants own case which was also upheld by the Larger Bench of this Tribunal in i.e Supreme Petro Chem Ltd. (supra). We find that the factual position, in the period covered by earlier show-cause notices is quite different from the present show-cause notices; whereas, in the previous set of show-cause notices the appellants were paying certain amounts to the contractor for undertaking transportation, loading and levelling of gypsum which was ultimately sold to cement manufacturer. In the instant case, the appellants are selling the gypsum as-is-where-is-basis to the contractor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
