Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2023 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 59 - AT - Central ExciseReversal of CENVAT Credit - manufacture and clearance of Hemophilus Vaccine which is duty free - Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004 - Appellants or M/s Panheber are manufacturers of the vaccine or not - HELD THAT:- The Drug Controller has categorically clarified vide Letter dated 06.04.2017 that M/s Panacea Biotec Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Panheber Biotec Pvt. Ltd. were issued different drug manufacturing licences for separate modules in the year 2008 and that M/s Panheber Biotec Pvt. Ltd. has been renamed as M/s Panera Biotec Pvt. Ltd. registered with the same address. We find that there is an Agreement dated 10th July, 2008 between the appellant and M/s PanEra Biotec Pvt. Ltd. and the same is named “Agreement for providing manufacturing facility, utilities and services of employees”. Similarly, the books of accounts of M/s Panheber Biotec Pvt. Ltd. indicates that they have taken various assets situated at Lalru, Punjab on operating lease agreements from its associate M/s Panacea Biotec Pvt. Ltd. (the appellant); these are generally non-cancellable and are renewable by mutual consent on mutually agreed terms. The books of accounts do indicate that lease amounts have been paid to the appellant. Learned Commissioner has relied upon the fact that there are not records maintained by M/s Panheber and that the records maintained by the appellant do have the entries for the manufacture of the said vaccine - It is also not on record whether any communication or correspondence was made with the Drug Authorities to ascertain the claims of M/s Panheber and the appellants. Drug manufacturing being closely monitored by various agencies and subject to various controls cannot happen in a secretive manner. It is on record that various authorities, national and international, have visited the facility where M/s Panheber have manufactured the vaccines. Under the circumstances, the claim of the appellants cannot be simply brushed aside saying that they might have contravened Drug Laws and that it was a flimsy stand taken by the appellants. The Department having not negated the claims of the appellant that it was not the appellants who have manufactured impugned exempted product i.e the Hemophilus Flu Vaccine. Therefore, there are no case made by the Department to invoke the provisions of Rule 6(3) of the CCR, 2004. Coming to the alternate submission that Rule 6 provides for the situations where a manufacturer manufactures dutiable as well as exempted products and avails CENVAT credit on all the inputs/ input services/ capital goods and that the options given under Rule 6(3) of CCR, 2004 cannot be enforced, it is found that as submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that Hon’ble High Court of Telangana has clearly interpreted the provisions in favour of the appellants. The findings of the Hon’ble High Court are clear that Rule 6 does not provide any mechanism for recovery of the said “10% amount” and that the Department is free to invoke Rule 14 of CCR, 2004 to demand wrongly availed credit, if any - the issue stands decided in favour of the appellants on the alternate submissions also. Appeal allowed.
|