9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1427X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ember (T) Shri G. Prahlad, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Jayanthi Krishna, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER The details of the appeals and the impugned orders are as below : Sl. No. Appeal No. Appellant Name Respondent Name Impugned Order 1. E/3053/2012 Zuari Cement Ltd., Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Tirupati OIO No. 26/2012 (C. Ex.), dated 25-7-2012 2. E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 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 effect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 24-5-2013 as reported in 2013 (298) E.L.T. 430 (Tri.-Bang.) held as under : "Dispute in this case is whether the cement packed in bags containing 50 Kgs. and cleared by the assessee through their depot is eligible for the benefit of rate of duty under Sl. No. 1C of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006 as amended. According to this notification, the price of the goods is not required to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 differ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
