TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (4) TMI 418
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... M/s. Sagar Cements Ltd. 71/2008 (H-III) CE dated 30-9-2008 2. E/03/2009 CCE, Hyderabad v. M/s. Anjali Portland Cement Ltd. 69/2008 (H-III) CE dated 29-9-2008 3. E/04/2009 CCE, Hyderabad M/s. Greygold Cements Ltd. 72/2008 (H-III) CE dated 30-9-2008 4. E/21 /2009 CCE, Hyderabad M/s. Kakatiya Cement Sugar & Industries Ltd. 73/2008 (H-III) CE dated 8-10-2008 5. E/22/2009 CCE, Hyderabad M/s. Keerthi Industries Ltd. 74/2008 (H-III) CE dated 8-10-2008 2. Since the issue involved in all these appeals is the same, they are being disposed of by a common order. 3. The relevant facts that arise for our consideration are : the respondents herein are manufacturers of Cement. The payment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l sale price as the clearances made by them to APSHCL and other consumers are to be considered as industrial/institutional consumers, in order to avail the ineligible benefit, the assessees herein had printed the RSPs on the said cement bags. This is directly in violation of the Notification. It is his submission that the Board's Circular dated 12-6-2008 had clarified that the goods on which retail sales price is not required to be printed would be covered under Sl. No. 1C of the Notification 04/2006 to 04/2007. It is his submission that in the instant cases, cement bags weigh 50 kgs. and the sale is to industrial consumers i.e. M/s. APSHCL and other industrial and institutional consumers. He would submit that the impugned OIA be set aside ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ough the records of this appeal and the contentions put forth by the appellants in support of their claim. The adjudicating authority's findings recorded in the impugned order have been duly considered by me. The crux of the entire dispute revolves around the inter pretation of the Notification No. 4/2007-C.E., dated 1-3-2007, which pro vides for a concessional rate of duty for cement sold in packaged form based on the retail sale price. In terms of the Notification, "retail sale price" means the maximum price at which the excisable goods in packaged form may be sold to the ultimate consumer and includes all taxes, local or other wise, freight, transport charges; commission payable to dealers, and all charges towards advertisement, delivery....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther than packaged form. It is contended that the impugned goods are out of the purview of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) (SWMP) Rules, 1977 as the supplies are made to M/s. APSHCL, being an industrial consumer and hence the appellants are not required to print the Retail Sale Price (RSP) on the bags. In my view, whether the impugned goods are within the purview of SWMP Rules, 1977 or not, is immaterial for the purposes of the Notification in question. The proviso to the Notification only caters to a situation where the RSP is not required to be declared and thus not declared. Even the Board's Circular on which the lower authority has placed reliance only provides clarification on the price to be adopted when the r....