2017 (9) TMI 1367

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Shri A. Cletus, ADC (AR) for the respondent ORDER Per Bench The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are manufacturers of cement and clinkers falling under Chapter Sub Heading 25.23 of CET and availing concessional rate of duty on the goods manufactured in terms of Sl. No. 1 C of Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 as amended. Two SCNs dated 11.09.2008 and 20.03.2009 w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of the appellant submitted that the issue involved in both the SCNs is identical. The appellants had availed concessional rate of duty for the cement supplied to industrial/Institutional consumers packed in 50 kgs bags based on the third proviso to Explanation (2) appended to Sl.No. 1 C of Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 as amended by Notification No. 4/2007 dated 01.03.2007. The adjud....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....trial/institutional consumers, as per Rule 2A of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. He reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the records. 5. The short issue involved is whether the benefit of notification would be admissible to the assessees or otherwise. We find that the issue stands settled in the case of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the learned counsel, as the benefit offered under the Notification pertains to goods cleared to industrial/institutional consumers and as this aspect was overlooked by the Legal Metrology expert as also by the learned Commissioner, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. The Board s clarification on the relevant question was wrongly by-passed by the adjudicating authority. We have found ....