9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 658X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rihoke (Oral): M/s Panacea Biotech Ltd., New Delhi, the appellant herein, is engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products falling under Chapter Heading 3003.10 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The unit is registered with the Central Excise Department. The appellant has been availing cenvat credit under Rule 3 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002. 2. Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period. Accordingly, a show cause notice raising demand of Rs.65,96,620/- was served on the appellant. Notice also propose to impose penalty. 3. The Commissioner, Central Excise, Delhi II after hearing the parties vide order in original dated 30.4.2003 confirmed the duty demand of Rs.65,96,620/- with interest and also imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/-. 4. It is against the aforesaid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... products under Rule 6(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules. 6. Ld. Counsel further submitted that Cenvat Credit Rule 6(3) was amended vide Finance Act, 2010 retrospectively and by way of said amendment an option was given to the manufacturer of dutiable or exempted goods not to maintain separate account for inputs that he should pay an amount equal to 8% of value of exempted goods or pay an amount as d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew of retrospective amendment brought into Cenvat Credit Rules vide Finance Act, 2010, the appeal needs to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication in the light of the Rule 6 of Cenvat Credit Rules as amended by Finance Act, 2010. 5. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and remit back the matter to the Commissioner Adjudication for deciding t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
