M/S. Heidelberg Cement (India) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raigad

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal10 July 2015

CitationAppeal No. E/85723/14

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The question whether cement in 50 kg bags supplied to the construction industry is assessable to duty on a retail sale price basis under Section 4A or on a transaction value basis under Section 4 is decided by following the Tribunal's earlier decision in the appellant's own case, reported at 2015 (315) ELT 53 (Tri-Mum), which the Tribunal finds to govern the present dispute and under which the appellant succeeds.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

IN THE CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNALWEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAIAppeal No.E/85723/14- Mum

(Arising out Order-in-Original No. 175/MAK (175) COMMR/RGD/13-14 dated 29.01.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service tax, Raigad )

For approval and signature: Honble Shri P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) Honble Shri S.S.Garg, Member (Judicial)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? : No 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? : Yes 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Order? : Seen 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities? : Yes

M/s. Heidelberg Cement (India) Ltd. Appellant

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad Respondent

Appearance:

Shri Rajesh Ostwal, CA for the appellant Shri Hitesh Shah, Comm.(AR) for the respondent

CORAM:

Honble Shri P.K. Jain, Member (Technical) Honble Shri S.S. Garg, Member (Judicial)

Date of hearing : 07.07.2015 Date of decision : 10.07.2015

O R D E R No:..

Per: P.K. Jain:

The brief facts of the case are that the appellant are engaged in the manufacture of cement. The issue to be decided in this case is whether the appellant is required to pay duty on cement bag of 50 kgs. supplied to construction industry on retail sale price basis or transaction value basis.

2. Ld. counsel for the appellant submitted that this issue in appellants own case has come up before this Tribunal reported in 2015 (315) ELT 53 (Tri-Mum) and the Tribunal has held in favour of appellant. Ld. Commissioner (AR) reiterated the finding of the Commissioner and submits that the duty is required to be paid with reference to Section 4A and not to section 4.

3. We have considered the submissions. We find that the issue is decided by this Tribunal in the appellants own case reported in 2015 (315) ELT 53 and in view of the said decision of the Tribunal, we allow the appeal filed by the appellant.

4. Appeal is allowed.

(Pronounced in Court on .)

(S. S. Garg) (P.K. Jain) Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)

//SR

This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.

Research this judgment with Miss Lucy

Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.

Try Miss Lucy free