Depot clearance did not defeat concessional excise benefit where cement moved from factory through the manufacturer's depot to buyers.

Clearance of cement from the manufacturer's factory to its own depot, followed by supply to construction companies, did not by itself defeat the concessional treatment under Clause 1C of Notification Nos. 4/2006-C.E. and 4/2007-C.E. The governing point was that the manufacturer's depot is not treated as a separate entity for the notification, so the requirement of purchase from the manufacturer remains satisfied even when goods move through the depot. On that basis, the differential duty demand based solely on the absence of direct factory-to-buyer clearance was unsustainable, and the concession continued to apply.

---

---

Issues: Whether cement cleared from the factory to the assessee's depot and thereafter supplied to construction companies was eligible for the benefit of Clause 1C of Notification Nos. 4/2006-C.E. and 4/2007-C.E. (as amended), and whether demand of differential duty could be sustained on the ground that the clearances were not made directly to the construction companies.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether clearance through a depot disentitled the assessee from the concessional rate. The Tribunal noted that the goods were admittedly cleared from the factory to the depot and then supplied to construction companies for which the benefit was claimed. The identical issue had already been decided in earlier Tribunal proceedings, where it was held that the depot of the manufacturer is not a separate entity for the purpose of the notification and that the requirement of purchase from the manufacturer is satisfied even when the goods move through the manufacturer's depot. The earlier view, having been upheld in further proceedings, was followed.

Conclusion: The benefit of Clause 1C of Notification Nos. 4/2006-C.E. and 4/2007-C.E. was available to the assessee, the differential duty demand was unsustainable, and the appeals were allowed.

---