TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laimed the benefit of Clause 1C of Notification No. 4/2006 and 4/2007 (as amended). Identical issue decided in the case of Madras Cements Ltd v. CCE, Guntur [2014 (3) TMI 307 - CESTAT BANGALORE], where it was held that It cannot be said that the depot of the manufacturer is a different entity and therefore the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of Sl. No. 1C of the notification ibid. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - E/3053/2012, E/25196, 25290, 25505 & 28422/2013 and E/20419/2014 - Final Order Nos. A/30088-30093/2018 - Dated:- 30-1-2018 - Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (J) and Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (T) Shri G. Prahlad, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Jayanthi Krishna, AR, for the Respondent. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Excise, Customs Service Tax, Tirupati OIO No. 25/2013-(C. Ex.) (Commr.), dated 27-9-2013 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On perusal of records, it transpires that the issue is regarding confirmation of the demand of differential duty in respect of cement cleared by the appellant. It transpires that appellant cleared cement by claiming benefit of Clause 1C of Notification No. 4/2006 and 4/2007 (as amended) for the supplies made to construction companies. It is the case of the Revenue that clearances effected by the appellant from their factory is not made directly to the construction companies but cleared to the depot on stock transfer memo and stock transfer memo being not a sale, the que ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d through depot, the condition that purchase should be from the manufacturer is not fulfilled (sic). 2. After hearing both sides, we find that the appeal is only on a very short point and also is covered by decisions of this Tribunal. Therefore, the requirement of pre-deposit is waived and stay petition is allowed and the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal. 3. The stand taken by the Revenue in this case that the depot cannot be considered as manufacturer is not correct. According to the Rule 2(a) under SWM Rules, the requirement is that the industrial consumer should have purchased the commodity from the manufacturer. It cannot be said that the depot of the manufacturer is a different entity and therefore the appellant is no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
