9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is packed and sold to different categories of customers on payment of Central Excise Duty at different rates as covered under Notification No.4/2007-CE, dated 01.03.2007 Sl.No.1A of the said Notification prescribes specific rate of duty for cement cleared to retail customers after affixation of MRP. The Sl.No.1C of the same notification prescribes the specific rate of duty for clearance of cement for sale to customers other than retail sale. The same Sl.No.1C also covers clearances of cement in bulk. The disputes in the three appeals are pertaining to the circumstances in which the appellant cleared certain cement bags which were already affixed with MRP, for use within their factory. The department was of the view that such cement alread ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... OL-3820-CESTAT-MAD decided that the benefit of Sl.No.1A will not be entitled for captive consumption but the duties are to be paid as per Sl.No.1C. 6. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, we note that the assessee has diverted some of the cement bags already affixed with MRP for captive use but divergent views are expressed in respect of the rate of duty applicable for such captive consumption. The two contending Sl.Nos. of the notification are 1A and 1C. Sl.No.1A in fact, provides the concessional rates of duty for clearance of cement marked with MRP. Sl.No.1C prescribes a higher rate of duty for cement other than retail sales. In the present case, the cement bags marked with MRP have not been sold in retail. 7. The id ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of goods that are required to be declared in accordance with the mode prescribed in section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944. Applicability of a rate of duty, merely because it has reference to sale price, does not mandate the condition of sale which may be relevant in a notification issued under section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944. 7. It is not reasonable to forbid the commercial exploitation of a manufacturer's products for its own use. As long as the liability to duty that crystallises on a like transaction with another entity is discharged, there is no scope for a different treatment. 8. On a perusal of the exemption notification the benefit of which was availed by the appellant, it would appear that the disputed rate of duty app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
