TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of appellants on duty rate for cement exports</h1> <h3>JAYPEE BELA PLANT Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BHOPAL </h3> JAYPEE BELA PLANT Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, BHOPAL - 2012 (286) E.L.T. 556 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Rate of duty on clearances of ordinary Portland cement for export to Nepal - Interpretation of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. - Requirement to print MRP on cement bags for export - Applicability of duty rates.Analysis:1. The dispute in this case revolves around the rate of duty on the clearances of ordinary Portland cement for export to Nepal by the units of M/s. Jay Prakash Associates Ltd. The key issue is whether the duty should be charged based on the tariff rate or as per the provisions of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. The appellant had printed the MRP on the cement bags cleared for export to Nepal, even though there was no legal requirement to do so. The department contended that since there was no requirement to print MRP for export consignments, duty should be charged at the tariff rate.2. The Commissioner, Central Excise, Bhopal, adjudicated on two show cause notices and confirmed duty demands for the appellants. The Commissioner refrained from imposing any penalty on the appellants. The appellants filed appeals against these orders, challenging the duty demands imposed.3. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that even if the cement bags cleared for export are considered 'other than in packaged form,' the duty rate prescribed in Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. should apply. The counsel contended that the benefit of the notification cannot be denied based solely on the presence of MRP on the bags, especially when there was no legal requirement for it. The appellant sought a waiver from the pre-deposit of duty demand and interest, stating a strong prima facie case in their favor.4. The Joint CDR opposed the stay application, arguing that since there was no requirement to print MRP for export consignments, duty should be charged at the tariff rate. The department contended that there was no basis for waiving the pre-deposit requirement.5. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and the relevant provisions. It noted that for goods cleared for export, there is no requirement to print MRP as per the SWM Act, 1976. The Tribunal interpreted the provisions of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., distinguishing between goods cleared in packaged form and those cleared 'other than packaged form.' Considering the absence of MRP requirement for export consignments, the Tribunal held that the cement should be treated as 'other than packaged form.' Therefore, the duty rate under Sl. No. 1C of the notification applied, ensuring no short payment.6. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument, citing a previous stay order in their favor. It concluded that the appellants had a prima facie case, and therefore, waived the pre-deposit of duty demand and interest for the appeals. The recovery of duty was stayed until the final disposal of the appeals.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented, and the Tribunal's interpretation of the relevant legal provisions, resulting in the decision to waive the pre-deposit requirement for the appeals.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
