9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 527X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t as Anaesthetics or otherwise, which was not considered. In these circumstances, the Appellant discharged duty and cleared their product for home consumption after availing CENVAT Credit on the inputs that were used in the manufacture of such product which would have been otherwise cleared by them as exempted, if the test result would have shown the product as Anaesthetics. The issue is covered by the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Pune-III Vs Ajinkya Enterprises [2012 (7) TMI 141 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], where it was held that once the duty on the final product has been accepted by the Department, the CENVAT Credit availed need not be reversed even if the activity does not amount to manufacture subsequently. Appeal allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and remaining clearances were for home consumption. It is his contention that from the very beginning, the Appellant had challenged the allegation of the Department that the product Lidoncaine USP/HCL is used as Anaesthetics only, but it has been their contention that the said product is multi-functional product and the clearances made by them for home consumption was to one M/s Search Chem. Industries Ltd for its use as a chemical. Further, it is his contention that since the goods have been exported under bond, therefore, the provisions of Rule 6(1) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 is not applicable to that quantity of inputs used in the manufacture of goods exported. In support, he referred to the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are concerned, the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Repro India Ltd. (supra). Regarding the issue of clearances of goods for home consumption is concerned, I find that from the very beginning, the Appellants have been claiming that the product is non-Anaesthetics and in support, they have placed end-use certificate from their customer. Also, I find from the records that the Appellant tried to make out a point before the Adjudicating Authority in support of their case that necessary sample of the product was required to be drawn for testing so as to ascertain the use of their product as Anaesthetics or otherwise, which was not considered. In these circumstances, the Appellant discharged duty and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
