2019 (7) TMI 2007 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal Granted: Builders Qualify for Notification Benefits as Institutional Consumers; Recovery Stay Extension Dismissed.

M/s Jaypee Sikandrabad Cement Grinding Unit Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Noida

M/s Jaypee Sikandrabad Cement Grinding Unit Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Noida - TMI Issues: Extension of stay of recovery, Entitlement to benefit of Notification No.4/2006, Determination of institutional consumers, Applicability of earlier Tribunal decisions.Extension of Stay of Recovery: The judgment addressed a miscellaneous application for an extension of stay of recovery already granted through a previous order. Both parties consented to final disposal of the matter, as it was covered by a previous decision of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case.Entitlement to Benefit of Notification No.4/2006: The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of cement falling under Chapter 25 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were clearing goods to institutional consumers and availing the benefit of Notification No.4/2006. Revenue contended that the appellants were not entitled to this benefit as the goods were covered by a notification under the Central Excise Act, 1944. Proceedings were initiated through a show cause notice, leading to the present appeal.Determination of Institutional Consumers: The issue revolved around the entitlement of the party to benefit under specific notifications. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions where it was held that builders and construction companies qualify as institutional/industrial consumers, making them eligible for the benefit of the notifications. By following these precedents, the Tribunal held that the appellants were eligible for the benefit of the notification during the relevant period of the appeal.Applicability of Earlier Tribunal Decisions: The Tribunal relied on its earlier decisions and case laws cited by the appellant to determine that builders and construction companies qualify as institutional/industrial consumers, entitling the appellants to the benefit of the notifications. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting the appellant consequential relief as per law.In conclusion, the judgment granted the appellants the benefit of Notification No.4/2006 for the relevant period, set aside the impugned order, and allowed the appeal. The miscellaneous application for extension of stay of recovery was dismissed as infructuous.