2022 (10) TMI 958 - AT - Central Excise

Area Based Exemption - Relevant date for commencement of commercial production - the date of commencement of commercial production should be treated as 01.01.2006 in terms of the notification dated 10.06.2003 as contended by the Department or it should be treated as 12.06.2006 as contended by M/s. Troikaa Pharmaceuticals (the respondent)? - HELD THAT - A categorical finding has been recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the ingredients to manufacture the tablets were received by the respondent on 05.06.2016. This finding has not been assailed in the appeal. The date of commercial production, therefore, cannot be before 05.06.2006. The EM also records the date of commencement of commercial production as 12.06.2006. The dates of the two records MFR and BMR as 01.06.2006 is contained in the BPR dated 12.06.2006 of the tablet by bifosa. This was the first batch produced by the respondent on 12.06.2006. The contention of the Department that the date of commercial production should, therefore, be treated as 01.06.2006 and not 12.06.2006 is incorrect as both these documents are prepared as per the standard operating procedure of good practices followed by the respondent which is also prescribed under the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules. There is no infirmity in the impugned order - The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Determination of the date of 'commencement of commercial production' for the purpose of claiming exemption from central excise duty.

Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi involved a dispute regarding the date of 'commencement of commercial production' for a manufacturer of pharmaceutical products seeking exemption from central excise duty. The respondent claimed that commercial production began on 12.06.2006, while the Department contended it started on 01.06.2006. The jurisdictional range superintendent initially believed the production commenced on 01.06.2006, leading to a disagreement on the expiry date of the exemption period.

The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order confirming the duty demand, emphasizing the lack of conclusive evidence supporting the Department's claim. The appellant provided documentary evidence, including the Entrepreneur's Memorandum-2 (EM-2) acknowledgment from the District Industries Centre, indicating the commencement date as 12.06.2006. The Commissioner found the appellant's contention supported by credible evidence, rendering the duty demand unsustainable.

During the appeal, the Department argued that the Master Formula Record (MFR) and Batch Manufacturing Record (BMR) indicated a start date of 01.06.2006, contradicting the respondent's claims. However, the Commissioner upheld the respondent's position based on the documentary evidence, including the date of ingredient receipt and the first batch production date.

The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's decision, noting that the first batch of medicines was manufactured on 12.06.2006, supported by the Batch Packing Record (BPR) and Quality Assurance Department approval. The Tribunal rejected the Department's argument, stating that both MFR and BMR dates were part of the standard operating procedure, and the actual production commencement date was correctly determined as 12.06.2006. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals).