Depot realisations cannot sustain central excise demand against the depot; the proper jurisdiction lies with the factory.

Central excise duty demand could not be confirmed against a manufacturer's depot when the goods had already been cleared from the factory on payment of duty. If the department considered depot realisations to be higher, the matter had to be pursued with the Central Excise officer having jurisdiction over the factory, because no provision in central excise law permitted a demand against the depot itself. The higher depot price also included excise duty and other taxes, and the dispute was confined to only about one month. On that basis, the demand against the depot was unsustainable and the impugned orders were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of central excise duty could be confirmed against the manufacturer's depot instead of the factory, and whether the assessable value at the factory gate could be disturbed on the basis of higher depot realisations.

Analysis: The goods had been cleared from the factory on payment of duty. If the revenue considered the depot realisations to be higher, the matter had to be taken up with the Central Excise having jurisdiction over the factory. There was no provision in central excise law to confirm a duty demand against the depot of the manufacturer. The higher depot price also included excise duty and other taxes, and there was no dispute for any period other than about one month.

Conclusion: The demand against the depot was unsustainable and the impugned orders were set aside.

---