2009 (5) TMI 723

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... JCDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : T.K. Jayaraman, Member (T) (Oral)]. - In terms of the impugned order, the applicants are required to pre-deposit the following sums:- (i)      Duty : Rs. 31,70,424/- under Section 11A(2) of the CE Act, 1944. (ii)    Interest under Section 11AB. (iii)   Penalty of Rs. 24,56,771/- under Section 11AC. (iv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee. (i)      CCE, Hyderabad v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. - 2006 (206) E.L.T. 236 (Tri.-Bang.). (ii)    CCE, Hyderabad-III v. Natco Pharma Ltd. - 2007 (208) E.L.T. 573 (Tri.-Bang.). (iii)   CCE, Hyderabad-IV v. Sreepathi Pharmaceuticals Ltd. - 2006 (205) E.L.T. 273 (Tri.-Bang.). (iv)   CCE, Chandigar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... annot say that the manufactured product is spent methanol. Spent methanol is a waste product. Assuming that purified methanol has been cleared, we do not find any process of manufacture as the input itself is methanol. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the applicants have prima facie a case in their favour. Moreover, the cited decisions are also in their favour. The learned Advocate .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X