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 Respondents' Exemption Claim under Notification No. 04/2006</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy Versus Ultra Tech Cement Ltd.</h3> Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy Versus Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. - TMI Issues:- Interpretation of Rule 2A (a) and Rule 2A (b) of the PC Rules for availing exemption under Notification No. 04/2006- Applicability of the exemption for goods sold to industrial/institutional consumers- Settlement of the issue in favor of the Respondents based on previous judgments and CBEC CircularsAnalysis:1. Interpretation of Rule 2A (a) and Rule 2A (b) of the PC Rules:The case involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of Rule 2A (a) and Rule 2A (b) of the PC Rules for availing exemption under Notification No. 04/2006. The Respondent argued that since the cement was sold to industrial/institutional consumers, where the declaration of Maximum Retail Price (MRP) was not required, they were eligible for the exemption. The Respondent contended that the clauses in Rule 2A (a) and Rule 2A (b) were mutually exclusive, and the absence of the need for MRP declaration justified their exemption claim.2. Applicability of the exemption for goods sold to industrial/institutional consumers:The Respondent relied on previous judgments, including the decision in Grasim Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Trichy, 2009, to support their position that the cement bags cleared for industrial/institutional consumption fell under the purview of the exemption provided in Notification No. 04/2006. Additionally, the Respondent cited CBEC Circular No. 124/02/2008 CX-3, which clarified that exemption under Sl.No.1C of the Notification was applicable when goods were sold to institutional/industrial consumers. The Tribunal, considering these arguments and precedents, upheld the Respondent's claim and dismissed the appeal filed by the department.3. Settlement of the issue in favor of the Respondents based on previous judgments and CBEC Circulars:The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and analyzing the arguments presented, concluded that the issue had been settled in favor of the Respondents based on previous judgments and CBEC Circulars. The Tribunal found that the judgments relied upon by the Respondent's counsel clearly supported the position that the demand made by the department was unsustainable. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the appeal filed by the department lacked merit and was subsequently dismissed, affirming the Respondent's entitlement to the exemption under Notification No. 04/2006.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
