9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Revenue contended that the benefit of the Notification cited above, for the reasons that the appellant is not a mini-cement plant; the clearance being for captive consumption no retail sale is involved and the clearances are in packaged form only. Revenue issued an SCN dated 2-4-2008 to the appellants, which was confirmed by OIO dated 30-8-2008. On an appeal filed by the appellants Commissioner (A) has upheld OIO vide order dated 26-11-2009. Hence this appeal. 2. The Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants have fulfilled the conditions and thus are eligible for the benefit of the Notification for the following reasons. (i). As the goods are not manufactured by a mini cement plant, they are not covered under Entry 1B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td Vs CCE, Raipur 2018(360) ELT 121(Tri-Del) (iv). Grasim Industries Ltd(Unit-I) Vs CCE, Trichy 2009(328) ELT 655(Tri-Chennai) 2.3. He further submitted that the demand is time barred. SCN was issued on 2-4-2208 covering a period 01.03.2o07 to 31-01-2008. The appellants have disclosed their intention to claim benefit vide letter dated 21-05-2007. As the demand itself is not maintainable, interest and penalty provisions do not apply. 3. The Ld. AR has reiterated the findings in OIO and OIA. 4. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. The brief issue involved in the case is to see whether the appellants are eligible for the benefit of Notification No.4/2007-CE dated 01.03.2007 on the cement cleared by them for captive use. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 3rd proviso they are to be assessed/ determined to duty as in the case of goods cleared in packaging form. Therefore, the impugned goods are required to be charged to duty in terms of 1C of the said Notification. 4.1. We find that the CBEC Circular has also clarified on the above lines. Tribunal in the case of ACC Ltd Vs CCE, Coimbatore (Supra) held that cement cleared for self-consumption cannot be considered as 'retail sales' under Rule 3(q) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. Similar view was expressed in the other cases cited by the counsel for appellants. Therefore, we find that the appellants case is squarely covered by the circular cited above and the ratio of the decision in the cases cite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
