2020 (2) TMI 514

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of clinker and cement falling under Chapter 25. They cleared 6374 MT of cement on payment of duty @ Rs. 400 per MT(PMT) whereas the duty payable was Rs. 350 PMT. The rates of duties on cement were changed from 01/03/2007 under Notification No.4/2007 dt. 01/03/2007 and the duty @ Rs. 350 PMT was levied on the cement having Retail Sale Price (RSP) less than Rs. 190 PMT and for the value exceeding Rs. 190 PMT, the rate fixed was Rs. 600 PMT. In addition, the rate of Rs. 400 PMT was also prescribed under the said Notification where the RSP is not required to be marked on the bags. The appellant supplied the cement to Government bodies for the pri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted that sl.No.2 of Explanation appended to this Notification has defined 'the retails sale price in detail. In the proviso to this explanation, it is mentioned that 'provided also that where the retail sale price of the goods are not required to be declared under the Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodities) rules, 1997 and thus not declared, the duty shall be determined as is in the case of goods cleared in other than packaged form". He further submitted that in the present case, the supply was to the State Government undertaking and the rate per bag was less than Rs. 190 and the RSP was declared on such bags. He further submitted that this issue has been considered by the Division Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Hy....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rate of Rs. 400 PMT. If the conditions laid down under a particular Sl.No. is satisfied, the manufacturer is allowed to manufacture goods prescribed against the said sl.no. Further we find that in this case, the goods were in packaged form being marked with the RSP and the price being less than Rs. 190 / bag even though the supply was to the Government undertaking and hence the rate applicable is only Rs. 350 PMT and not Rs. 400 PMT at which the appellant has paid the duty. Further we find that the original authority has allowed the refund claim after verifying the full facts whereas the Commissioner(Appeals) has not properly interpreted the provisions of Notification to deny the refund to the appellant. further we find that this issue is s....