TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1168
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ll as industrial/institutional consumers (Not for Retail sale bags viz. NFR Bags). They paid excise duty @ Rs. 600/- per tonne or 12% ad valorem on clearances made to retail customers depending on the quantity of cement sold. As regards sale to industrial/institutional customers and self-consumption, they availed exemption under Notification No.4/2007-CE dated 01.03.2007 and paid excise duty @ Rs. 400/- per tonne. During the impugned period, the Appellant claimed concessional rate of duty on 28,470.20 MT of cement cleared to various consumers. A Show Cause Notice No.03/2008 dated 08.04.2008 was issued alleging that only 2,980.95 MT of the said clearances, sold to M/s. Visaka Industries Ltd. & M/s.The Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. can be said to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Buildings/ I.T. projects 1,215.00 7. Charitable institutions Buildings 144.00 8. Educational institutions Buildings/infrastructure 4,248.25 9. Hospitals Buildings/infrastructure 1,744.50 10. Societies Buildings 998.10 11. Self-consumption inside factory Construction & other purposes 945.05 12. Stock-in-transit/ closing stock at warehouses Unsold 632.30 Total 29,415.25 (ii) This table was submitted to the Commissioner and there is no dispute regarding the same. The only ground of denial is that the above categories do not constitute. (iii) The goods manufactured and cleared by them are classifiable in CETH 25232990 with t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....E iv. Heidelberg Cement (India) Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2015 (315) E.L.T. 53 (Tri.-Mum) v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2015 (317) E.L.T. 505 (Tri.-Del) vi. CCE Vs. Mysore Cements Ltd, 2010 (259) E.L.T. 30 (Kar.) vii. Mysore Cements Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2010 (349) E.L.T. 398 (Tri. Bang.) viii. Grasim Industries Ltd. (Unit-I) Vs. CCE, 2009 (238) E.L.T. 655 (Tri. - Chennai) ix. Shree Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2016-VIL-1020-CESTAT-DEL-CE x. Chettinad Cement Corp. Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2015 (329) E.L.T. 845 (Tri. - Chennai) xi. Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, 2004 (175) E.L.T. 779 (Tri. Del.) (vii) In the instant case, the non-trade sector sale bags and relevant invoices are unambiguously mar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r production". It is only a use for construction purpose and nothing to do with further production. Hence concessional rate of duty under Notification No.04/06-cannot be availed for these clearances also. 4.1 Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. The core issue that comes up for appellate decision in this appeal is whether the clearances of cement made by the appellant will satisfy the conditionalities of Entry 1C of Notification No.4/2006-CE dt. 01.03.2006 to benefit from reduced duty liability of Rs. 400 per ton. 4.2 As already seen above, the said entry 1C seeks to cover the following goods : "All goods, whether or not manufactured in a mini cement plant, not covered in S.No.1B, other than those cleared in packaged f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ailways], hotel or any other similar service industry. (b) Industrial Consumer-Means those consumers who buy packaged commodities directly from the manufacturers/packers for using the product in their industry for production, etc. 4.5 It is seen that the appellant had sold cement in packs of 50 kgs each. Except for 945.05 MTs (self-consumption) and 632.30 MTs (stock-in-transit closing stock at warehouse), the remaining portion of the disputed clearances totalling to 29415.25 MTs were sold either to manufacturers, users, asbestos and cement/pipe manufacturers, ready-mix concrete manufactures or otherwise to builders, as infrastructure/buildings/ government projects construction, educational institutions, hospitals and societies. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... litre and cement and fertilizer bags containing more than 50 kg. The second category is packaged commodity meant for industrial or institutional consumer. As regards the second category there is no restriction with respect to the quantity of the goods contained in the package. There is a semi colon between the two clauses. This would clearly indicate that the word and between the two clauses have to be read disjunctively and not conjunctively. In other words, in respect of both the above categories, the provisions of PC Rules would not apply." 4.7 In the event, in respect of the clearances of 25489.250 MT (26434.30 MT Less 945.050 MT) referred to in the Annexure to the Show cause notice, these clearances will necessarily have to be held....