https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278190 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. en-us Tue, 30 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Jan 2019 06:58:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278190 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. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 30 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278190