2018 (1) TMI 1427 - AT - Central Excise

Supply of Cement made to construction companies - benefit of Clause 1C of Notification No. 4/2006 and 4/2007 (as amended) - 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, so benefit cannot be allowed - demand of differential duty - Held that - It is undisputed that clearances effected from the factory premises of the appellant to the depot, was subsequently cleared to construction companies wherever they had claimed 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.

Summary

Issues:
Confirmation of demand of differential duty for cement clearances under Notification No. 4/2006 and 4/2007.

Analysis:
Upon reviewing the records, it was found that the issue revolved around the demand confirmation of differential duty for cement clearances by the appellant. The appellant claimed the benefit of Notification No. 4/2006 and 4/2007 for supplies to construction companies. The Revenue contended that since the cement was cleared to the depot on stock transfer memos and not directly to construction companies, the benefit of the notification did not apply. Consequently, demands were confirmed.

It was noted that clearances from the factory to the depot were later transferred to construction companies, where the benefit of the notification was claimed. Reference was made to a previous Tribunal case involving a similar issue, where it was held that the depot of the manufacturer should be considered part of the manufacturer for the purpose of the notification. The Tribunal found that the Revenue's stance was incorrect and that the appellant was indeed eligible for the benefit of the notification. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

The Tribunal emphasized that the requirement of pre-deposit was waived due to the short point of appeal and the precedents set by previous Tribunal decisions. It was highlighted that the High Court had upheld a similar order in the past. Ultimately, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed, with nothing further remaining to be addressed in the matter.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, overturning the demands for differential duty on cement clearances under the relevant notifications. The decision was based on the interpretation that the depot of the manufacturer should be considered part of the manufacturer for the purpose of availing the benefit under the notification. The Tribunal's decision was supported by previous case law and upheld by the High Court, leading to the setting aside of the impugned orders and the allowance of the appeals.