2011 (8) TMI 260 - AT - Central Excise

Demand - Notification No. 3/2001-CE dated 01.03.2001 6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 and 4/2006 dated 01.03.2006 - the issue involved was regarding eligibility of benefit of notification to the product Calcium Borogluconate Injection and Calcium Magnesium Borogluconate Injectio - Held that benefit of Notification is to be extended to the assessee - Decided in favor of the assessee

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against setting aside demand of duty, interest, and penalties based on eligibility for exemption under specific notifications.
- Interpretation of eligibility for exemption under Notification Nos. 3/2001-CE, 6/2002-CE, and 4/2006 for Calcium Borogluconate Injection and Calcium Magnesium Borogluconate Injection.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad involved the Revenue challenging an order in appeal that set aside the demand of duty, interest, and penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) had ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that the products, Calcium Borogluconate Injection and Calcium Magnesium Borogluconate Injection, were eligible for exemption under Notification Nos. 3/2001-CE, 6/2002-CE, and 4/2006. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and reviewing the records, noted the contention of the Revenue that the Commissioner had erred in granting exemption. However, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, agreeing that the products fell under the category of Intravenous Fluid, making them eligible for the said notifications.

Furthermore, the respondent's counsel highlighted a previous order by the Tribunal in a similar case involving the same products, where the benefit of the aforementioned notifications was extended. The Tribunal examined this previous order and confirmed that the issue revolved around the eligibility of the products for the notification benefits. Citing the previous ruling, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal and rejected it. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was legally sound, affirming the decision in favor of the respondent.

In summary, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the decision that the Calcium Borogluconate Injection and Calcium Magnesium Borogluconate Injection were eligible for exemption under Notification Nos. 3/2001-CE, 6/2002-CE, and 4/2006. The judgment emphasized the importance of categorization under the relevant notifications and precedent in similar cases to determine eligibility for exemption benefits, ultimately ruling in favor of the respondent.