Retail sale price for cement concessional duty must be printed on the package, not computed from excluded charges.

Printed contract prices on cement bags were not accepted as the retail sale price for concessional duty where they excluded dealer commission, local taxes and unloading charges, so relief under Sl. No. 1A of Notification No. 4/2006-CE was unavailable on that basis. The adjudicating authority's fixation of a different retail sale price was held to be beyond the show cause notice and impermissible because the retail sale price must be printed on the package, not derived by comparison or computation. Consideration of concessional treatment under Sl. No. 1C also required proper examination of whether the buyers were industrial or institutional consumers, so the matter was remanded for fresh decision after hearing the appellant.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the retail sale price printed on cement bags cleared on contract basis, which did not include dealer commission, local taxes and unloading charges, could be treated as the retail sale price for concessional duty under Sl. No. 1A of Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006. (ii) Whether the demand could be sustained after the Original Authority fixed a different retail sale price and whether the appellant was entitled to be examined for concessional treatment under Sl. No. 1C on the footing that the buyers were industrial or institutional consumers.

Issue (i): Whether the retail sale price printed on cement bags cleared on contract basis, which did not include dealer commission, local taxes and unloading charges, could be treated as the retail sale price for concessional duty under Sl. No. 1A of Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006.

Analysis: The contract price was found not to reflect the retail sale price contemplated by the notification because it excluded essential components forming part of the declared retail sale price. The concessional levy under Sl. No. 1A was therefore not available on the basis of the printed contract price.

Conclusion: The appellant was not entitled to concessional duty under Sl. No. 1A on the basis of the retail sale price adopted for contract clearances.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand could be sustained after the Original Authority fixed a different retail sale price and whether the appellant was entitled to be examined for concessional treatment under Sl. No. 1C on the footing that the buyers were industrial or institutional consumers.

Analysis: The fixation of retail sale price by the adjudicating authority was held to be beyond the scope of the show cause notice and impermissible because retail sale price must be printed on the package and cannot be derived by computation or comparison. The claim for Sl. No. 1C also required proper examination of the buyers' status as industrial or institutional consumers, which had not been adequately considered.

Conclusion: The matter required fresh adjudication on these issues and the impugned order could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The adjudication was set aside and the dispute was sent back for fresh decision on all issues after granting opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

---