9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 587X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AND SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Ms. Sweta Mukherjee, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri P.K.Ghosh, Authorized Representative for the Revenue ORDER The appellant has challenged the impugned for demanding duty for the period June 2007 to February 2008. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is manufacturer of cement and cleared the cement in bulk packs, on tender, to var ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... KOLKATA] has held as under:- "4. Considering the facts that the appellants' own case as reported in 2015 (317) ELT 505 (Tri.-Del.), this Tribunal has observed as follows : "5. It is seen that CESTAT in the case of M/s. Heidelberg Cement (India) Ltd. /M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. v. CCE, Nagpur/Raigad (supra) has clearly held that cement in 50 Kg bags sold to builders/developers qualifies as s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntended that the industries like M/s. Grasim Industries, Gwalior Chemicals, etc. did not use cement for producing excisable goods, they admittedly used the same for construction and would therefore qualify to be reckoned in the category of builders. Government also would qualify as institutional buyer. It is also not the case of Revenue that RSP was required to be printed on such sales as per the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any." 4. As the issue is no more res integra, therefore, we hold that the appellants have cleared cement in 50 kgs. bags to the buyers qualified as institutional or industrial customers, therefore, they are entitled for the benefit of Notification No.4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006. 5. In these terms, we do not find any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
