TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 514X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Sl.No.1(A) prescribed the rate of ₹ 350/- PMT whereas the sl.No.1(C) prescribed the rate of ₹ 400 PMT. If the conditions laid down under a particular Sl.No. is satisfied, the manufacturer is allowed to manufacture goods prescribed against the said sl.no. Further, in this case, the goods were in packaged form being marked with the RSP and the price being less than ₹ 190 / bag even though the supply was to the Government undertaking and hence the rate applicable is only ₹ 350 PMT and not ₹ 400 PMT at which the appellant has paid the duty. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Central Excise Appeal No. 458 of 2009 - Final Order No. 20103/2020 - Dated:- 11-2-2020 - MR. S.S GARG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period regarding the rate applicable to categories such as Government supplies, industrial supply etc. and therefore the appellant while discharging the duty liability under Rule 8 calculated the duty @ ₹ 400 PMT and paid at the same rate even though in the invoices the rate was shown as ₹ 350 PMT. Thereafter the appellant filed refund claim of excess duty of ₹ 3,28,082/-which was granted by the Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dt. 28/09/2007. The Department reviewed the order and filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) who accepted the appeal and set aside the Order-in-Original. Hence the present appeal. 3. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned AR defended the impugned order. 6.1. After considering the submissions of both the sides and perusal of the material on record, we find that in the present case, the appellant has supplied the cement to Government bodies i.e. M/s. AP Housing Corporation, Hyderabad. Further we find that as per the Notification No.4/2007 which prescribes the rates of duty, the appellant s case falls under Sl.No.1A which prescribes the rate of duty @ ₹ 350 PMT. The relevant entry in the said notification is reproduced herein below:- Sl. No. Chapter Heading Description Rate Rs./MT 1. .. 1A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification to deny the refund to the appellant. further we find that this issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Sagar Cements Ltd. cited supra wherein the Tribunal in para has held as under:- 7. It can be seen from the above reproduced portion that it is not in dispute that the respondents indicated retail sale price on the bags. It is also seen that the requirement of not printing of the retail sale price is not applicable to the respondents, as the goods are sold to APSHCL by indicating the price at which it was contracted on each bag. It is also on record that there was no case of the Revenue that the respondents were not required to declare the retail sale price on the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
