9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 958X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herefore, cannot be before 05.06.2006. The EM also records the date of commencement of commercial production as 12.06.2006. The dates of the two records MFR and BMR as 01.06.2006 is contained in the BPR dated 12.06.2006 of the tablet by bifosa. This was the first batch produced by the respondent on 12.06.2006. The contention of the Department that the date of commercial production should, therefore, be treated as 01.06.2006 and not 12.06.2006 is incorrect as both these documents are prepared as per the standard operating procedure of good practices followed by the respondent which is also prescribed under the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules. There is no infirmity in the impugned order - The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. - EXCISE APP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent informed the jurisdictional range superintendent by a letter dated 12.06.2016 that it had started commencement of commercial production on 12.06.2006 and so the period of 10 years would lapse on 11.06.2016. The range superintendent, however, believed that the date of commencement of commercial production would be 01.06.2006 and so the exemption from payment of central excise duty would expire on 31.05.2006. 5. The duty for the relevant period was confirmed by the adjudicating authority by treating the date of commercial production as 01.06.2006. The respondent, however, filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who set aside the order of the adjudicating authority and the relevant portion of the order passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate of commencement of commercial production as mentioned in the report date 21.09.2006 of the Range Superintendent which has been referred to and relied upon by the adjudicating authority ignoring all other documentary evidence produced and submitted by the appellant in support of his contention. The demand of duty is, therefore, not sustainable. (emphasis supplied) 6. Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned authorized representative appearing for the Department submitted that both the Master Formula Record [ MFR ] and the Batch Manufacturing Record [ BMR ] show that the respondent had started the commercial production on 01.06.2006. Learned authorized representative also contended that Entrepreneur s Memorandum-2 [ EM ] acknowledgment issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2006 whereafter the respondent sold the first batch against an invoice dated 29.06.2006. 11. The dates of the two records MFR and BMR as 01.06.2006 is contained in the BPR dated 12.06.2006 of the tablet by bifosa. This was the first batch produced by the respondent on 12.06.2006. The contention of the Department that the date of commercial production should, therefore, be treated as 01.06.2006 and not 12.06.2006 is incorrect as both these documents are prepared as per the standard operating procedure of good practices followed by the respondent which is also prescribed under the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules. 12. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (Order dictated and pronounce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
