9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent had indicated that they are clearing “Oxytetracycline Injectable Solution (Veterinary)” without payment of duty by claiming exemption under Notification. It is also a fact that their ER1 monthly returns indicate number of notification as 06/2003 - the First Appellate Authority was correct in coming to a conclusion that the entire demand in the case is hit by limitation. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - E/1976 & 1977/2010 - FINAL ORDER No. A/30928-30929/2018 - Dated:- 6-8-2018 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) and Mr. P. Venkata Subba Rao, Member (Technical) Shri Bhanu Kiran, Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the Revenue. Shri G. Prahlad, Advocate for the Appellant. ORDER [Order per: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent along with interest and also for imposing penalties by invoking extended period of limitation. Respondent contested the show cause notice on merits as well as on limitation, Adjudicating Authority did not agree with the contentions raised and confirmed the demands so raised with interest and imposed penalties on the respondent s company as well as on the individual. On an appeal filed against the Order-in-Original, the First Appellate Authority held in the favour of the respondents herein and set aside the Order-in-Original. 5. Learned Departmental Representative draws our attention to the entry No. 57 of Notification No. 06/2002 and submits that formulation which are manufactured from Bulk Drugs specified in list No. 2 of the said n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in the case of Madhukar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana [2016 (341) ELT 302] wherein, the question as to exemption notification was considered for indigenously produced consumed in manufacture of non-excisable products, held in favour of the appellant therein. Further, it is his submission that the entire demand is barred by limitation as the show cause notice is issued on 05.03.2009 for the period 2003-2004, 2005- 2006. It is his submission that the respondent had always been filing declarations i.e., price declarations before the authorities and reflecting the clearances made in the monthly returns. He draws our attention to letter dated 24.07.2002 which is addressed to the Superintendent in charge intimating him enclosure of 173 C de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 do not apply. It can be seen from the above reproduced entry that the notification granted exemption only to the formulations mentioned in list No. 2. On careful consideration of list No. 2, we find that the ingredient used by the respondent Oxytetracycline is not mentioned in the products for the manufacture of entry No. 57. It is the case of the respondent and accepted by the First Appellate Authority that Oxytetracyline is a derivative of Tetracycline Hydrochloride. We find no force in the said arguments also as, it is in respect of the benefit of notification as the said list No. 2 does not indicate that the derivative of Tetracycline Hydrochloride are also sought to be exempted. On merits ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
