2016 (10) TMI 949 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal upholds refund sanction order for cement, emphasizing Retail Sale Price requirement.

The Commissioner C&C. E, Hyderabad-III Versus M/s India Cements Ltd.

The Commissioner C&C. E, Hyderabad-III Versus M/s India Cements Ltd. - TMI Issues:Refund claim for excise duty paid under protest - Interpretation of Notification No. 4/2006.CE - Applicability of exemption for cement supplies to A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd. - Requirement to print Retail Sale Price (RSP) on packaged commodities - Appeal against refund sanction order.Analysis:The case involved a refund claim for excise duty paid under protest by the assessee for despatches of cement to A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd. The assessee contended that they were paying excise duty at a certain rate as per a notification, but were directed by the department to pay a higher rate. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) set aside the order confirming the higher rate and allowed the appeal, confirming the lower rate as per the notification. The refund was sanctioned by the Assistant Commissioner, leading to an appeal by the department before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the refund order. The main ground of appeal by the department was the requirement to print the Retail Sale Price (RSP) on packaged commodities. The department argued that the sale to A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd. did not constitute a retail sale, as there were no intermediaries involved. However, the Tribunal referred to a previous decision in favor of the appellants and dismissed the department's appeal, stating that the cement bags were required to declare the RSP as per the Standards of Weights and Measures Act.The Tribunal analyzed the interpretation of the Notification No. 4/2006.CE, which provided for a concessional rate of duty for cement sold in packaged form based on the retail sale price. The Tribunal noted that the cement was being sold in packaged form with the retail sale price declared, meeting the criteria for the concessional rate. The Tribunal disagreed with the lower authority's interpretation of the proviso to the Notification, stating that whether the goods fell under the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 was immaterial for the Notification's purposes. The Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to the concessional rate as the retail sale price was known and declared, even though the printing of the price on the packages was questioned by the department.The Tribunal referred to a previous decision where it was established that the respondents had indicated the retail sale price on the bags of cement supplied. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner (Appeals) that the cement bags were not exempt from declaring the RSP under the SWMP Rules, as they were required to do so. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the impugned order, dismissing the department's appeal and upholding the lower authorities' decisions.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the refund sanction order, emphasizing the importance of declaring the Retail Sale Price on packaged commodities and confirming the applicability of the concessional rate of duty as per the Notification.