9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 877X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E dated 1.3.2006 or it has to be considered as drug or medicine which falls under Sl. No. 47B of the said Notification? - HELD THAT:- In case the goods fall under Sl. No. 47A of Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 and are unconditionally exempted, whether the common input credit used in the exempted product would be reversible / duty payable to the percentage of value of the exempted goods as per Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004? - HELD THAT:- The judgments in AUROBINDO PHARMA LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD-I [ 2009 (3) TMI 810 - CESTAT, BANGALORE ] and DR. REDDY S LABORATORIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD [ 2009 (8) TMI 580 - CESTAT, BANGALORE ] have held that since the term bul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... required to reverse the credit/ pay the amount demanded as a percentage of sale value of the exempted goods Danazol , as per law during the relevant period, under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 - it is found that there has been some confusion in the minds of the department and they have blown hot and cold on the same issue at different points of time. The exemption has been correctly availed by them. The department is permitted to verify the mathematical accuracy of the claims of reversal made by the appellant and demand the excess credit taken or refund the excess reversal of credit made by the appellant if any. Needless to say that in case of a demand, the appellant may be given an opportunity to explain the reversal of credi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, two Show Cause Notices covering the period from April 2009 to March 2010 were issued to the appellants denying the exemption. After due process of law, the adjudicating authority vide the Order in Original confirmed the duty demands and also imposed penalties equal to the duty demands. Aggrieved by the said orders, appellant filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals), who vide the common impugned order upheld the duty while setting aside the penalties. Aggrieved against the duty demand, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 3. No cross-objection has been filed by the respondent-department. 4. We have heard Shri Ashok B. Nawal, Consultant for the appellant and learned Smt. O.M. Reena, ADC (AR) for the Respondent. 5. Shri A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (233) ELT 372 (Tri. Bang.) c. Dr. Reddy s Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad reported in 2010 (251) ELT 447 (Tri. Bang.) d. CCE, Hyderabad Vs. Hetero Drugs Ltd. reported in 2010 (262) ELT 490 (Tri. Bang.) 6. Learned AR Smt. O.M.Reena has taken us through the Order in Appeal and stated that bulk drug s fall under Sl. No. 47B of Notification No.4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. The exemption is conditional to the appellant following certain procedure which they have failed to comply with. Hence the appeal has been rightly rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the same may be upheld. 7. We find that this is a case where two appeals have been filed by the appellant covering the following Order in Original as shown in the Table below ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 009 to Feb. 2010 8. Two issues arise for consideration:- (i) Whether the product Danazol which is a bulk drug would fall under Sl. No. 47A of Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 or it has to be considered as drug or medicine which falls under Sl. No. 47B of the said Notification. (ii) In case the goods fall under Sl. No. 47A of Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 and are unconditionally exempted, whether the common input credit used in the exempted product would be reversible / duty payable to the percentage of value of the exempted goods as per Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. 9. We find that the issue at Sl. No. (i) as to whether Danazol is eligible for the exemption under Sl. No. 47A o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale value of the exempted goods Danazol , as per law during the relevant period, under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. We find that there has been some confusion in the minds of the department and they have blown hot and cold on the same issue at different points of time. Now that we have held that the appellant is eligible for the exemption under Sl. No. 47A of Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006, the goods are unconditionally exempt from payment of duty. We find that the appellant has also stated in the reply to the Commissioner (Appeals) as recorded at para 18 of the impugned order that they have already reversed the CENVAT credit involved on Danazol . That being so, we find that the exemption has been correctly availed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
