Grasim Cement vs Cce, Raipur

IN THE CUSPTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI

Date of Hearing/ Decision:12.08.2015

Excise Appeals Nos.E/2316 & 2317/2008 and E/1240

& 2974/2009-EX(DB)

[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.Commissioner/RPR/78/2008 dated 24.09.2008 in Appeal No.E/2316/2008 and Order-in-Original No.Commissioner/RPR/77/2008 dated 23.09.2008 in Appeal No.E/2317/2008, Order-in-Original No.Commissioner/RPR/23/2009 dated 13.03.2009 in Appeal No.E/1240/2009 and Order-in-Original No.28/Commr/CEX/IND/2009 dated 26.08.2009 in Appeal No.E/2974/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur ]

Grasim Cement .Appellants

Ultratech Cement Ltd.

Vs.

CCE, Raipur Respondent

Appearance:

Rep. by Shri B.L. Narsimhan, Advocate and Shri Rahul Tangri, CA for the appellant

Rep. by Shri Promod Kumar, JCDR for the respondent.

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

1 Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3 Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order?

4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?

Coram: Honble Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

Final Orders No. 52598-52601/2015 dated:12.08.2015

Per Ashok Jindal:

The appellants are in appeals against the impugned orders wherein demand of duty along with interest was confirmed and equal amount of penalties were also imposed by evaluating the goods viz. cement cleared by them as per Section 4 A of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of cement and they supply cement in loose form as well as bags of 50 kg. each. They were availing exemption under notification no.4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 at different concessional rate of duty under Sl.No.1C of the said notification. The appellant claimed that they are selling these goods to Industrial and Institutional customers, who are entitled to get the goods on payment of concessional rate of 400 P.M.T. The Revenue is of the view that these customers cannot be considered as Industrial and Institutional customers, therefore, the appellant are not entitled for the benefit of the concessional rate of duty as per notification no.4/2006-ibid. In these set of facts, various show cause notices were issued to the appellant, same were adjudicated and impugned demands were confirmed. Aggrieved from the said orders, the appellants are before us.

3. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions.

4. It is the contention of the ld. Counsel for the appellant that in the case of Ultratech Cement Ltd. in Appeal No.E/2654/2008-EX(DB) vide Final Order no.53733/2014 dated 5.9.2014, the issue has been settled that the appellant are entitled to avail benefit of notification no.4/2006-CE ibid availing concessional rate of duty. Therefore, we follow the decision of the Ultra Tech Cement (supra) and hold that the appellants are entitled to claim the benefit of notification no.4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 for the clearances, which are made in dispute in the present proceedings. Therefore, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals with consequential relief, if any.

( Ashok Jindal )

Member (Judicial)

( B. Ravichandran)

Member (Technical)

Ckp.

1