TMI Blog2001 (6) TMI 538X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reinafter referred to as M/s. EPPL for short) for blister packing and entered into an agreement with M/s. EPPL for marketing the same. 2. Pursuant to this arrangement, M/s. EPPL placed orders for supply of Aluminium foils and other packing material bearing their logo received ZIFOL-12 capsules in their premises, carried out blister packing, did not maintain any records of the movement of the goods nor intimated the department. They were put on notice for contravention of the Central Excise Rules for having manufactured and clandestine removal of these excisable goods. They were asked to show cause as to (i) Why Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 21,20,886/- being duty on clearance of ZIFOL-12 during 1990-91 to 1993-94 should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 14E as this amendment was pari-materia to Chapter Note 5 of Chapter 30 of CETA, 1985. Whether duty should be discharged on such Blister Packs of ZIFOL-12 capsules at the time of their removal would depend upon the coverage of the exemption under Notification 214/86, dated 25-3-1986 which has been claimed under letter dated 27-10-1992 of Shri Jatish N. Seth of M/s. SP, as admittedly found by the adjudicator in Para 31 of the impugned order. However, the adjudicator in his finding has not discussed this aspect any further i.e. whether the said Notification exemptions are eligible or not. The duty demand on M/s. EPPL, for blister packing Zifol-12 as made out without coming to a finding on this claim cannot be upheld. (b) We find, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the licensee, in this case M/s. Shrusti Pharmaceuticals, shall test each batch of the final product and shall maintain the records of the final carton packing showing records of such test as specified under Schedule U . In this context M/s. Shrusti Pharmaceuticals has all along pleaded that they have carried out the test of the final product in their premises, and that they have maintained the records therefor. In this regard, some of the records maintained by M/s. Shrusti have been filed with the adjudicating authority as well as in this appeal which are contained at page 194 to 202 as also packing of drugs at pages 210 to 215 of the appeal paper book. That from the said provisions it is clear that the responsibility of testing was all a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatutory information on the date of manufacture, date of expiry, Batch No. and M.R.P. are printed at the time of blister packing lead us to confirm that it was therefore necessary to find and determine, if test samples of such Batch Blister Packs were kept at the premises of M/s. EPPL as required under the Drugs Act/Rules. The matter therefore, requires to be redecided for ascertaining whether samples for Control/Test were kept the blister packs at M/s. EPPL in view of the submissions made by the learned Advocate as regards the marketability and Drugs Law of the Blister pack Zifol-12 . (d) As regards the finding arrived at by the learned Adjudicator that Blister Packs were not being sent back to M/s. SP, the Advocate has relied upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
