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 Upholds Central Excise Duty Demands for Cement Export to Nepal</h1> <h3>M/s. Jaypee Rewa plant, M/s Japee Bela Plant Versus CCE, Bhopal</h3> M/s. Jaypee Rewa plant, M/s Japee Bela Plant Versus CCE, Bhopal - 2017 (358) E.L.T. 427 (Tri. - Del.) Issues:Appeal against Orders-in-Original confirming Central Excise duty demands for cement export to Nepal; Interpretation of Notification No. 4/2006-CE; Claiming benefit under Sr. No. 1A and 1C of the notification; Applicability of Standards of Weights and Measures Act to exported goods; Printing of Retail Sale Price (RSP) on exported cement bags; Admissibility of benefit under the notification for exported goods.Analysis:The appellants, M/s Jaypee Rewa Plant and M/s Jaypee Bela Plant, filed appeals against Orders-in-Original confirming Central Excise duty demands for cement export to Nepal. The appeals were represented by Advocate Shri Rahul Tangrick for the appellants and Shri Amresh Jain for the Revenue. The appellants claimed the benefit of Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 under Sr. No. 1A, stating that they fulfilled the necessary conditions. They argued that the goods were cleared in packaged form with the Retail Sale Price (RSP) within the specified band, as required by the notification.The appellants also sought the benefit under Sr. No. 1C of the notification, emphasizing that the goods were not covered in Sr. No. 1B and were cleared in a form other than packaged. They contended that they were not liable to pay duty as per the tariff rate. The appellants relied on case laws to support their arguments regarding the exemption notification.The Revenue, represented by Shri Amresh Jain, supported the findings of the lower authorities in the Orders-in-Original. They argued that the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, and the Rules made thereunder, were not applicable to goods exported to Nepal. Therefore, the benefit of the notification would not apply to the exported cement packages, even if the RSP was printed on the bags. The Revenue contended that since the goods were exported, the requirements of the SWMA were not applicable, leading to the inapplicability of the exemption notification.The Tribunal considered the submissions of both sides and the relevant case laws. It noted that the exported cement packages to Nepal were not covered by the SWMA and its rules. The adjudicating authority observed that the benefit of the exemption notification was not applicable to goods exported to Nepal, as the SWMA provisions did not apply to export goods. Consequently, the benefit under the notification was deemed unavailable for the subject goods of both appellants. Thus, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the Orders-in-Original confirming the Central Excise duty demands for the exported cement.
TaxTMI 