MANU/CS/0074/2017Equivalent Citation: 2018(361)ELT909(Tri. - Ahmd.

)
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST ZONAL BENCH, AHMEDABAD
E/237/2010-DB (Arising out of OIO-23-29-COMMR-2009 dated 06/01/2009 passed by
Commissioner of Central Excise-RAJKOT), E/900/2011-DB (Arising out of OIO-37-
50/COMMR/2011 dated 31/03/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs
and Service Tax-RAJKOT), E/981/2011-DB (Arising out of OIO-37-50/COMMR/2011
dated 31/03/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-
RAJKOT), E/982/2011-DB (Arising out of OIA-37-50/COMMR/2011 dated 31/03/2011
passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-RAJKOT),
E/983/2011-DB (Arising out of OIO-37-50/COMMR/2011 dated 31/03/2011 passed by
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-RAJKOT), E/984/2011-DB
(Arising out of OIO-37-50/COMMR/2011 dated 31/03/2011 passed by Commissioner of
Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-RAJKOT), E/985/2011-DB (Arising out of OIO-
37-50/COMMR/2011 dated 31/03/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise,
Customs and Service Tax-RAJKOT), E/986/2011-DB (Arising out of OIO-37-
50/COMMR/2011 dated 31/03/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs
and Service Tax-RAJKOT), E/987/2011-DB (Arising out of OIO-37-50/COMMR/2011
dated 31/03/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-
RAJKOT), E/988/2011-DB (Arising out of OIO-37-50/COMMR/2011 dated 31/03/2011
passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-RAJKOT),
E/989/2011-DB (Arising out of OIO-37-50/COMMR/2011 dated 31/03/2011 passed by
Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-RAJKOT), E/990/2011-DB
(Arising out of OIO-37-50/COMMR/2011 dated 31/03/2011 passed by Commissioner of
Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-RAJKOT), E/991/2011-DB (Arising out of OIO-
37-50/COMMR/2011 dated 31/03/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise,
Customs and Service Tax-RAJKOT), E/992/2011-DB (Arising out of OIO-37-
50/COMMR/2011 dated 31/03/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs
and Service Tax-RAJKOT), E/993/2011-DB (Arising out of OIO-37-50/COMMR/2011
dated 31/03/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-
RAJKOT) and E/994/2011-DB (Arising out of OIO-37-50/COMMR/2011 dated
31/03/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax-
RAJKOT) and Order Nos. A/10962-10977/2017
Decided On: 15.05.2017
Appellants: Sanghi Industries Limited
Vs.
Respondent: C.C.E. & S.T., Rajkot
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (J) and Ashok K. Arya, Member (T)
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: R. Nambi Rajan and Anand Nainawati, Advocates
For Respondents/Defendant: Sameer Chitkara, A.R. (Addl. Commissioner)
Case Note:
Excise - Duty demand - Concessional rate - Rule 2A of Standards of Weights &
Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 - Present appeal filed against
orders confirming demand of differential duty on goods sold - Whether

07-06-2023 (Page 1 of 10) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis University

concessional rate of duty as per Notification would not be applicable to sales
made to/for builders, developers, contractors and construction firms,
manufacturers of finished goods, captive consumption - Held, issue was
squarely covered by Tribunal decisions - Sales made to various categories of
buyers are covered under Rule 2A of Rules, 1977 - Such goods are eligible for
benefit of Notification - Impugned orders were modified - Appeal allowed. [4],
[4.6] and[5]
Facts:
SIL/Assessee-manufacturer was engaged in the manufacture of ordinary
Portland Cement falling under Chapter Heading No. 2523 of First Schedule to
Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. SIL cleared cement in packed form to various
consumers. The Assessee-manufacturer claims that these buyers were
covered by the definition of industrial consumer or institutional consumer
under explanation to Rule 2A Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged
Commodities) Rules, 1977 and Rule 3(ii) of Packaged Commodities Rules,
2011. The Assessee-manufacturer claimed that in terms of Rule 2A(b) of the
Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 and in
terms of Rule 3(ii) of PC Rules in respect of packages of commodities meant
for industrial consumers or institutional consumers, the requirement of
declaring MRP on the packages was not applicable. On all such bags of cement
cleared to the following category of buyers, the Assessee did not declare MRP
and specifically declared as Project Supply Not for Resale.
The Assessee had cleared cement to these buyers on concessional rate of duty
availing the benefit in terms of Sr. No. 1C of the Notification as amended from
time to time. The Assessee claims that the aforesaid entry 1C of the
Notification provides concessional rate of excise duty for cement cleared in
package of 50 kg bags where there is no requirement to declare retail sale
price on such bags. In other words, cement bags of 50 kg cleared to Industrial
or Institutional consumer are eligible for concessional rate of duty. The
Revenue initiated investigation against the Assessee. The Department issued
a total of 21 Show Cause Notices and demanded differential Central Excise
duty by denying the benefit of concessional rate of duty as provided in Sr. No.
1C of Notification as amended during the relevant period.
Seven Show Cause Notices were adjudicated and 14 Show Cause Notices
were adjudicated later on. Both the impugned Orders-in-Original confirmed
the demand of differential duty on the goods sold. Hence, the present appeal.
Held:
Applicability of concessional rate of duty:
(i) The issue was squarely covered by the Tribunal decisions. The sales made
to various categories of buyers are covered under Rule 2A of Rules, 1977 and
such goods are eligible for the benefit of Notification. The impugned orders
were modified. [4],[4.6] and[5]
ORDER
Ashok K. Arya, Member (T)

07-06-2023 (Page 2 of 10) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis University

1 . M/s. Sanghi Industries Ltd. (SIL) has filed two appeals (E/237/2010 and
E/900/2011). Appeal No. E/237/2010 is filed against OIO No. 23-29/Commr/2009, dt.
06.01.2009 and appeal No. E/900/2011 is filed against OIO No. 37-50/Commr/2011, dt.
31.03.2011, both passed by Commissioner of C.Ex. & S. Tax, Rajkot.
1.1 Revenue has also filed 14 Cross Appeals (No. E/981-994/2011) against OIO No.
37-50/Commr/2011, dt. 31.03.2011.
1 .2 As the subject matter in all these appeal cases is common, therefore these are
being decided by this common order.
2. The brief facts are that:-
i) M/s. SIL, an assessee-manufacturer inter alia, is engaged in the manufacture
of ordinary Portland Cement falling under Chapter Heading No. 2523 of First
Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
ii) M/s. SIL cleared cement in packed form (in 50 kg bags), inter alia, to
various consumers like builders/developers, industrial manufacturers who used
cement for construction or as raw material. The assessee-manufacturer claims
that these buyers are covered by the definition of industrial consumer or
institutional consumer under explanation to Rule 2A Standards of Weights &
Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 and Rule 3(ii) of Packaged
Commodities Rules, 2011.
iii) The assessee-manufacturer M/s. SIL claims that in terms of Rule 2A(b) of
the Standards of Weights & Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 and
in terms of Rule 3(ii) of PC Rules in respect of packages of commodities meant
for industrial consumers or institutional consumers, the requirement of
declaring MRP on the packages is not applicable. On all such bags of cement
cleared to the following category of buyers, the assessee did not declare MRP
and specifically declared as Project Supply Not for Resale:-
a) Social, religious and charitable organizations,
b) Builders, developers, contractors and construction firms,
c) Infrastructural development projects,
d) Government bodies,
e) Manufacturers of finished goods
f) Captive consumption
iv) During the period March 2007 to January 2010, the Assessee had, inter alia,
cleared cement in 50 kg bags to the aforesaid buyers on concessional rate of
duty availing the benefit in terms of Sr. No. 1C of the Notification No. 4/2006-
CE : MANU/EXCT/0008/2006, dt. 01.03.2006 as amended from time to time.
v) The assessee claims that the aforesaid entry 1C of the Notification provides
concessional rate of excise duty for cement cleared in package of 50 kg bags
where there is no requirement to declare retail sale price on such bags. In other
words, cement bags of 50 kg cleared to Industrial or Institutional consumer are
eligible for concessional rate of duty.

07-06-2023 (Page 3 of 10) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis University

vi) The Revenue initiated investigation against the assessee mainly on the
following grounds:-
a) that the exemption was availed by the assessee M/s. SIL by treating
the aforesaid category of buyers as bulk buyers, without categorizing
them as to whether they are industrial or institutional consumers or
not.
b) that majority buyers had consumed the cement cleared by the
appellants for civil construction activities or residential complexes or
for industrial building construction for themselves.
c) that M/s. SIL have violated the statutory provisions of affixing Retail
Sale Price (RSP) on their packaged commodity while clearing cement
with intent to pocket undue profit.
d) that M/s. SIL wrongly cleared cement on payment of concessional
rate of duty in the guise of buyers being institutional consumers or
industrial consumers.
e) that M/s. SIL have intentionally and deliberately misstated the facts
by considering their bulk buyers as institutional consumers which is not
applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case and
wrongly availed the benefit of concessional rate of duty.
vii) In view of the above, the Department issued a total of 21 Show Cause
Notices during March 2007 to January 2010 and demanded differential Central
Excise duty by denying the benefit of concessional rate of duty as provided in
Sr. No. 1C of Notification No. 4/2006-CE : MANU/EXCT/0008/2006 as amended
during the relevant period.
viii) Seven Show Cause Notices issued for the period March 2007 to November
2008 were adjudicated by OIO No. 23-29/Commr/2009, dt. 11.11.2009 and 14
Show Cause Notices issued for the period December 2008 to January 2010 were
adjudicated by OIO No. 37-50/Commr/2011, dt. 31.03.2011.
ix) Both the aforesaid impugned Orders-in-Original have confirmed the demand
of differential duty on the goods sold to the following categories of buyers:-
a) Social, religious and charitable organizations,
b) Infrastructural development projects,
c) Government bodies,
and dropped the demand of duty on the goods sold to the remaining
categories.
x) The status of the demands raised in the Show Cause Notices pursuant to the
aforesaid impugned Orders-in-Original dt. 11.11.2009 and 31.03.2011 are as
follows:-
OIO No. Demand Demand Department
upheld dropped appealed
OIO No. 23-Rs. Rs. No

07-06-2023 (Page 4 of 10) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis University

 OIO No. 23-Rs. Rs. No
29/Commr/2009, 5,06,37,480/- 8,39,57,101/-
dt. 11.11.2009
OIO No. 37-Rs. Rs. Yes
50/Commr/2011, 11,29,12,698/- 5,87,99,884/-
dt. 31.03.2011
xi) To the extent that the demand of duty of Rs. 5,06,37,480/- was confirmed
by the OIO dt. 11.11.2009, the assessee M/s. Sanghi Industries Ltd. (M/s. SIL)
has filed Appeal No. E/237/2010. To the extent that the demand of duty of Rs.
11,29,12,698/- was confirmed by the OIO dt. 31.03.2011, the assessee M/s.
SIL has filed Appeal No. E/900/2011.
xii) For the demand of duty of Rs. 5,87,99,884/- dropped by the OIO dt.
31.03.2011, the Department has filed Appeal Nos. E/981-994/2011.
3. With the background of above facts, both sides i.e. the assessee-manufacturer M/s.
SIL represented by Shri R. Nambirajan, Shri Anand Nainawati, learned Advocates and
the Revenue represented by Shri Sameer Chitkara, the learned A.R. have been heard.
4 . After careful observation of the facts on record and the submissions of both the
sides, it appears that there is no dispute that the assessee-manufacturer is clearing the
goods viz. Cement to various bulk buyers in package form of 50 kg bag with specific
declaration on the bag Not for Resale and goods are not meant for further retail sale
therefrom; but are to be consumed by buyers for their own use. It has been claimed by
the assessee that as per the provisions of Rule 2A(b) of the Standards of Weights &
Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, the goods were cleared to the buyers
which are covered under the category of industrial/institutional buyers mentioned at (a)
and (b) of the explanation to Rule 2A of SWM Rules. The goods were cleared by paying
duty @ Rs. 400 PMT for every consignment meant for institutional and industrial buyers.
4.1 Revenue's stand is that subject supplies/sales, though declared as Not for Resale
are not covered under Rule 2A of SWM Rules, therefore, concessional rate of duty as per
Notification No. 4/2006-CE : MANU/EXCT/0008/2006 Sr. No. 1(b) or 1(c) will not be
applicable to sales made to/for builders, developers, contractors and construction firms,
manufacturers of finished goods, captive consumption.
4 .2 The Department vide the impugned Orders-in-original has denied the benefit of
Notification No. 4/2006-CE : MANU/EXCT/0008/2006 under its Sr. No. 1(C) for the
sales made to following 3 categories of bulk buyers:-
i) Social/Educational, religious and charitable organizations
ii) Infrastructural development projects
iii) Government bodies
i) Social/Educational, religious and charitable organizations:-These
organizations have bought cement for use in construction of buildings,
hospitals, community halls, educational centres etc for providing the services to
the public. It has also been submitted that if above activities/projects are not
considered as service industry, the construction activity undertaken by these
buyers is for production etc and they will be industrial consumers. Considering
these facts, we are of the view that this category of buyers appear to be rightly
covered under the category of institutional consumer.

07-06-2023 (Page 5 of 10) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis University

 ii) Infrastructural development projects:-There cannot be two opinions that the
buyers in this category would be covered under the category of institutional
consumer; as infrastructure development projects are integrally linked with the
construction industry, which is in the category of a service industry.
iii) Government bodies:-The facts on record mention that the bulk buyer here is
Gujarat Government's GSCSCL (Gujarat State Civil Supply Corporation Ltd.,)
who is working as a nodal agency for procuring cement for supply to
Government offices/Boards/Corporation for their development and
infrastructure works as per the indent received from the concerned department.
Such supplies to GSCSCL appear to be covered under the category of supplies
to institutional consumers as these are used for construction activity by such
entities of Gujarat Government.
4.3 In case of other three categories of buyers (i) Builders, Developers, Contractors and
Construction Firms which includes category of (ii) Captive consumption and (iii)
Manufacturers of finished goods, the impugned orders allowed the benefit of
Notification No. 4/2006-CE : MANU/EXCT/0008/2006 (supra), with which we agree with
the reasons given therein.
4.4 The present matter is covered by the Tribunal's decisions in the cases of Ambuja
Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE Raipur MANU/CE/0101/2016 : 2017 (1) TMI 1130-CESTAT New
Delhi, Shree Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE Jaipur MANU/CE/0822/2016 : 2016 (12) TMI 25-
CESTAT New Delhi, Prism Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE Bhopal MANU/CE/0427/2016 : 2016
(10) TMI 828 CESTAT New Delhi. In the decision of Shree Cement Ltd., reference has
also been made to the decisions made in the cases of Jayanti Food Processing (P) Ltd.
Vs. CCE, Rajasthan MANU/SC/3474/2007 : 2007 (215) ELT 327 (SC), Swan Sweets Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. CCE Rajkot 2006 (198) ELT 565 (Tri-Mum) as affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in CCE Rajkot Vs. Makson Confectionary Pvt. Ltd. MANU/SC/0995/2010 : 2010
(259) ELT 5 (SC). The CESTAT in the case of Ambuja Cements Ltd. Vs. CCE Raipur-
MANU/CE/0101/2016 : 2017 (1) TMI 1130 (supra) observes as follows:-
3 . The brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in the manufacture of
Cement and Clinker falling under Chapter Heading 252329 and was clearing the
same, inter alia, to various buyers in 50 kg bags. Such buyers included
manufacturer of excisable items, construction service providers, Government
Department and Charitable institutions/trusts. Some of the cement was also
used for self-consumption and for quality control. During the period of dispute,
Appellant had cleared 62673.633 MT cement by discharging duty liability at the
concessional rate of Rs. 400/- PMT as prescribed under Sl. No. 1C of
Notification No. 4/2006-CE : MANU/EXCT/0008/2006 (as amended). Relevant
part of the Notification is as follows:-
(Table)

S. No.
Chapter or heading or sub-heading or tariff item of the first schedule
Description of excisable goods
Rate
Condition No.

07-06-2023 (Page 6 of 10) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis University

 (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
1C
252329
All goods, whether or not manufactured in a mini cement plant, not
covered in S. No. 1B, other than those cleared in packaged form:
Explanation for the purpose of Sl. Nos. 1, 1A, 1B and 1C,-
mini cement plant means -
(i)
(ii)
2.
retail sale price means
Provided
Provided
Provided also that where the retail sale price of the goods are not
required to be declared under the Standards of Weights and Measures
(Packaged Commodities) Rule, 1977, and thus not declared, the duty
shall be determined as is in the case of goods cleared in other than
packaged from: Rs. 400 per tone
4. After careful consideration of the facts of the case and the submissions of both the
sides, it appears that the issue is squarely covered by CESTAT decisions in the case of
Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichi 2008-TIOL-2328-
CESTAT-Mad and Heidelberg Cement (India) Ltd. and M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. Vs.
CCE Nagpur, Raigad 2014-TIOL-1433 (CESTAT Mum). CESTAT Bombay in the case of
Heidelberg Cement (India) Ltd. and M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (supra) in its Paras 5.4
and 5.6 observes as under:-
5.4 There is no dispute that the goods were sold by the appellant directly to
the builders/developers/Ready Mix Concrete (RMC) manufacturers. RMC is an
excisable product and therefore, the sale of cement for manufacture of RMC
would definitely come within the category of sale to industrial consumers. As
regards builders/developers etc., construction activity is a service activity as is
well understood and there is also a Service Tax levy on construction activity.
Therefore, sale to such builders/developers would certainly qualify as sale to
institutional consumers. The argument of the Revenue that since the sale is not
to consumers like transportation, airways, railways, hotels, hospitals and any

07-06-2023 (Page 7 of 10) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis University

 other service institution and since the builders/developers have not been
specifically included and, therefore, such sale would not qualify as sale to
institutional consumer is bereft of logic because only certain service providers
have been specifically mentioned therein; others are covered by the expression
like and any other service institution similar to those specifically mentioned.
The institutional consumers mentioned are transportation, hotels and hospitals
which do not form any particular class. Therefore, the principle of ejusdem
generis will not apply. Any service institution would qualify as institutional
consumers.
5.5.
5.6 In the Grasim Industries case (supra), this issue was specifically examined
by this Tribunal & it was held as follows:-
As rightly pointed out 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 favour with the assessee's case in view of the
clarification issued by the C.B.E. & C., which is to the effect that no
RSP requires to be printed on the goods sold to industrial/institutional
consumers as defined under the rules framed under the Standards of
Weights and Measures Act and that such goods would be covered under
Sl. No. 1B or 1C of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. :
MANU/EXCT/0008/2006, by virtue of the Second Proviso to the
Explanation to SI. No. 1C of the Notification as amended. The Board's
clarification squarely covers the case in favour of the assessee.
Further, in the case of Mysore Cement Ltd. - 2010 (249) E.L.T. 398,
this Tribunal held that construction industry is a service industry and
benefit claimed by the appellants under the aforesaid Notifications shall
be admissible. The said decision was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court
of Karnataka (supra). Again in the case of India Cement Ltd. -2009-
TIOL-1464-CESTAT-MAD : 2009 (235) E.L.T. 145 (T), it was held that
cement cleared to industrial/institutional consumers in 50 kg bags are
eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 4/2006 :
MANU/EXCT/0008/2006 under Sr. No.1C. Thus it can be seen that this
Tribunal as also the High Court have been consistently holding that
institutional/industrial consumers are eligible for the benefit of
Notification No. 4/2006 : MANU/EXCT/0008/2006 and Notification No.
12/2012.
4.1 As facts are similar to the facts of the decisions quoted above; therefore, following
the decisions in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. (supra) and Heidelberg Cement
(India) Ltd. and M/s. Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. (supra), the appellant would be eligible for
the benefit of Notification No. 4/2006 : MANU/EXCT/0008/2006 under Sr. No. 1C of the
table annexed to it.
4.5 Further, the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Prism Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE Bhopal (supra)
observes as under:-

07-06-2023 (Page 8 of 10) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis University

 3 . The applicability of concessional rate for the cement cleared to builders in
construction industry and educational institution have been subject matter of
decision by this Tribunal. In Heidelberg Cements (India) Ltd. M/s. Ultra Tech
Cement Ltd. Vs. CCE, Nagpur, Raigad 2014 TIOL-1433-CESTAT-MUM, the
Tribunal held that any service institution would qualify as institutional
consumer, builders, developers were held to be eligible for coverage in the said
category. The Tribunal in the case of Grasim Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE, Trichy
2009 (238) ELT 655 (Tri-Che) relied on the Board clarification dt. 12.06.2008
to hold that Government companies, construction companies and other
industrial/institutional consumers were eligible for such concessional rate of
duty. The Tribunal in appellant's own case vide Final Order No. 54122/2014, dt.
13.10.2014 held that when there is no requirement to declaration the RSP on
the package in terms of Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977 the goods should
be treated as if cleared in other than packaged form and the concessional rate
of duty in terms of Entry 1C should be eligible. The Tribunal was deciding the
issue of RSP and the concession under the said Notification for exported
cement.
4 . We find that the original authority found that hospitals, co-operative
societies, temples cannot be considered under the category of institutional or
industrial consumers. We find the reasoning given by the original authority
those schools, educational institutions and hospitals are not service industry in
terms of Rule 2A of the Packaged Commodities Rules, 1977 is not tenable. The
institutional consumer means those consumers who buy cement directly from
the manufacturers for service industry like transportation including airway,
railway, hotel or any other similar service industry. We find that educational
institutions and hospitals are directly buying cement from the assessee-
appellant and rightly eligible for concessional rate of duty as service institution.
Even if it is considered that these institutions do not come under the category
of other similar service industry, as per Rules, the fact remains that the sale to
these institutions are not covered by the definition of retail sale as per Rule
2(q) of the said Rules. Admittedly, the cement without marking of RSP has been
sold by the assessee-appellant directly to these consumers and as such these
transactions does not qualify as retail sale in view of the statutory definition
which requires sale, distribution or delivery of such commodity through retail
sale agency or other instrumentality for consumption by an individual. In the
present case, admittedly, the sale being direct without any intermediary
involved, the criteria for retail sale has not been fulfilled. As such we find
wherever such direct sale is effected the application of Packaged Commodities
Rules, 1977 will not be governed by Rule 3 for enforcement.
5 . In view of the above position, We find that the denial of the concession in
terms of the above said notification for the assessee-appellant on these grounds
is not justifiable.
4.6 From above discussions, and the decisions cited, we are of the considered view that
the sales made to various categories of buyers are covered under Rule 2A of SWM
Rules, 1977 and such goods are eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 4/2006-CE :
MANU/EXCT/0008/2006 (supra).
5. In the result, the impugned Orders No. 23-29/Commr/2009, dt. 06.01.2009 and No.
37-50/Commr/2011, dt. 31.03.2011 are modified to above effect and the appeals filed
by assessee M/s. Sanghi Industries Ltd. are allowed and the appeals filed by the

07-06-2023 (Page 9 of 10) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis University

Revenue are rejected.
(Pronounced in the Court on 15.05.2017).

(Table) This
judgments has been sourced from the court website. The tables in the
judgment may not be aligned.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

07-06-2023 (Page 10 of 10) www.manupatra.com Symbiosis University