9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 647X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the common impugned order. The main respondent is M/s Inven Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. The brief facts of the case are that certain investigations were carried out against the main respondent by the officers of Central Excise Intelligence. On conclusion of the investigation, proceedings were initiated alleging unaccounted clearance of pharmaceutical products. The case was adjudicated resulting in impugned order. The Commissioner in his order dated 21/11/2005 dropped the demand made in the show cause notice. The Revenue is aggrieved by this order and filed these appeals. 2. The learned AR submitted that the case against the main respondent is mainly on account of unaccounted manufacture and clearance of various pharmaceutical products. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V. Fluids the matter stand decided against them by the Tribunal vide the final order dated 29/10/2010. However, the present case is mainly on unaccounted clearances for which the Department failed to adduce proper corroborative evidences and, hence, the impugned order is legally unsustainable. Regarding the issue of a demand for duty on I.V. fluids it is the case of the respondent that they have been providing details regularly to the Department based on which periodical show cause notices have been issued to deny exemption and, hence, the impugned order is correctly holding that the demand Rs. 28,97,641/- cannot be maintained for extended period. 4. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. We find that in the present p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... portedly involving demands which are already covered by way of periodical notices which was quashed by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court, the matter requires factual re-verification. During the arguments, both the sides were not able to categorically submit, based on documents, about the amount of Rs. 28,97,641/- being partly or wholly covered in such periodical notices. Though contrary claims were made, no supporting evidence are placed before us. As such, we find that this requires verification by the Original Authority for a fresh decision. Since, the matter relating to substantial portion of demand is being remanded, the order itself is set aside and all the issues are kept open for a fresh decision of the Original Authority. The ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
