9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri B.L. Narsimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Commissioner under the impugned Order, has confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 22,02,829/-; that out of the total amount of duty confirmed, they are not challenging confirmation of demand of duty amounting to Rs. 7.2 lakhs relating to Lovastatin. Learned Advocate, further, submitted that the Appellants manufacture various bulk drugs which are cleared by them on payment of duty to their various units. They are also selling the bulk drugs to various other drugs medicine manufacturer; that whenever the bulk drug is found to be defective in nature, the same is returned back to their factory either under the provisions of Rule 173H or under Rule 57F(3) of the Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion in the case of M/s. Pepsi Food Pvt. Ltd. Final Order No. 207/2002-D, dated 27-8-2002 [2003 (154) E.L.T. 387 (T)]; that the Appeal filed by the Revenue against the decision in Pepsi Food case has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 10-2-2003 after condoning the delay. He also has relied upon the decision in the case of Lincoln Parentarals Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad-II [2003 (154) E.L.T. 419 (T) = 2003 (56) RLT 879 CEGAT]. 2.2 Learned Advocate, further, mentioned that demand of duty of Rs. 88,513/- has been confirmed in respect of consignment of Histic Tablets received back as the wrong MRP was printed on the tablets; that after printings the correct MRP, they had cleared the said tablet without payment of the Central Excise duty; that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the labels as the labels fixed thereon mentioned wrong potency and the Tribunal held that such change of labelling does not amount to manufacture in terms of Note 5 to Chapter 30. We, therefore, set aside the demand of duty amounting to Rs. 88,513/-. Regarding the demand of duty in respect of Pen-G Acylase that was received back from their Mohali factory for repairing/reconditioning, the Tribunal has already held in the Appellants own case vide Final Order No. A/374/2003-NB(C), dated 9-7-2003 that the process of milling, blending, sifting, washing etc. does not amount to manufacture. Following the ratio of the said decision, we allow the Appeal on this account also. The Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. - - TaxTMI - TMITax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
