9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1549X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 100% EOU, engaged in the manufacture of Bulk Drugs formulation, classifiable under Chapter 29 and 30 of CETA, 1985. A show-cause notice dated 10.02.2009 was issued, proposing demand of duty of Rs. 78,62,545/- due on the clearance of goods into DTA during the period 01.03.2006 to 31.01.2008, along with interest and to impose penalty. By the impugned order, the adjudicating authority has dropped the proceedings initiated against the appellant. 4. We find that the demand of duty of Rs. 31.91 lakhs was confirmed in respect of the goods cleared by the respondent to their depot without payment of VAT. The balance amount of demand of Rs. 31.78 lakhs was in context with clearance of bulk drugs by the respondent to its own sister unit in DTA on sto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their depot. Therefore the condition of payment of VAT is fulfilled by impugned goods and they are rightly entitled to the benefit of Notfn. No. 23/03-CE dated 31.03.2003. 18. The second part of the demand for Rs. 38.71 Lacs is with regard to bulk drugs cleared by M/s Cipla Ltd, 100% EOU to their own sister unit in DTA on stock transfer basis. The allegation in the show-cause notice is that no VAT is paid on this stock transfer and therefore the noticee is liable to pay 4% SAD. 19. The noticee submits that they are eligible to the benefit of Notfn. No. 23/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003 because the goods are not exempted by the State Govt. from payment of Sales Tax. Under eexemption Notfn. No. 23/2003-CE dated 31.03.2003, all goods cleared by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21. In view of the above, the issue is already settled and the demand does not survive on merits. Accordingly, I pass following order." 5. We find that Revenue has not disputed the payment of VAT at the time of sale of goods by the respondent from its depot. In this context, the Tribunal in the case of Micro Inks v. Commr of C.Ex. & Service Tax, Daman - 2014 (303) ELT 99 (Tri. Ahmd) has allowed the appeal on the identical situation. Further, in the case of VVF Ltd. vs. CCE , Belapur - 2014 (312) ELT 116 (Tri. - Mum), the Tribunal held as under:- "5. Having considered the rival contentions, it is held that the ruling relied upon by the Revenue is of no help being clearly distinguishable in view of the additional exemption of Sales Tax in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
