Full Judgment
3. The issue involved in these appeal is whether the appellants were justified in paying central excise duty at tariff rate and clearing its products under MRP claimed under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act when the good were supplied to various Government departments against DGS & D approved rate contract. The Revenue is demanding duty on the basis of the assessment made under Section 4 of the Central Excise Act.
4. We find that this issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Purisons Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Delhi-II, reported in 2003-TAXINDIAONLINE-223-CESTAT-DEL. In this case, the Tribunal held as under : "5. We find merit in the contention raised by the appellant. If the nature of the transaction between the appellant and DGS & D is properly understood, then there cannot be any doubt regarding applicability of Section 4A on the facts of this case. The negotiation and the arrangement arrived at between DGS & D and the appellant relate only to rate and other conditions regarding sale.
The sale is effected directly to different departments in respect of each piece or airconditioner. The ratio of the decision in Bharti Systel Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh, 2002-TAXINDIAONLINE-48-CESTAT-DEL cannot be of any application in the present case since there it was admitted that the sale of telephone instruments to DOT and MTNL was in bulk.They were distributing each instrument to the subscriber without transferring the ownership but on rental basis. Therefore, there was no question of any retail sale involved in the transaction. It was under these circumstances we took the view that Section 4A has not application in that case. But in the present case there is retail sale to different departments. Therefore the provisions of section 4A will be directly applicable." 5. In view of the above decision of the Tribunal, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal are allowed.