9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 660X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: S K Mohanty: This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 26/06/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, LTU, Mumbai. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a 100% EOU, engaged in manufacturing of capsules/tablets of pharmaceutical formulations. The appellant avails CENVAT credit of Central Excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant was liable to pay an amount equal to the credit availed in respect of such input and the removal shall be made under the cover of invoice as prescribed under Rule 11 of the rules. The show cause notice issued by the department was adjudicated vide the impugned order dated 26/06/2009, wherein Central Excise duty demand of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment of equal amount of credit availed, when the inputs are removed "as such" from the factory. Thus, he submitted that confirmation of the adjudged demand by the original authority is not legal and proper. 4. On the other hand, Learned Authorised Representative appearing for revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and further submitted that since at the time of removal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of inputs removed as such or after it partially processed, when the same are sent to a job-worker for further processing. The said sub-rule mandates that the inputs or the resultant product manufactured therefrom have to be received back by the manufacturer within 180 days of their being sent from the factory. In the present case, it is undisputed fact that the appellant had removed the raw mate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... factory. Since in the present case, the goods were removed on job-work basis, the provisions of sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 will not be applicable for payment of equal amount of CENVAT credit availed on such inputs. Thus, we are of the considered view that the original authority is not justified in confirming the adjudged demand on the appellant. 7. Therefore, we do not find any merits in the impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
