TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 717X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of manufacture of the above said injections, an intermediate stage comes into existence i.e. Ampicillion Sodium powder is manufactured by the appellants and which have been captively consumed to manufacture the final products viz., Ampicillion Sodium Injections. - held that : Appellant is not entitled for the benefit of notification No.7/94 dated 01/03/94 because the appellants are the manufacturer of Ampicillion Sodium Injections, which cannot be termed as bulk drugs.and appellants are entitled for the benefit of Notification No.10/96-CE dated 23/07/96. - it is remanded to original adjudicating authority for re-quantification of the demands for the period prior to 23/07/96 after reversal of 8% of the value of the exempted products clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ispute Demand (Rs.) Proportionate reversal under Rule 57CC Reversal @ 8% w.e.f 23/7/1996 38/CEX/97 dated 12/07/1997 Feb 95 to Aug 96 Dec 96 5,78,536/- 6,41,381/- - TR-V/Concept/Pharma/Captive 97 dated 26/08/97 Feb 97 to May 97 3,64,759/- - 6,32,053/- TR-V/Concept/Pharma/Captive 97 dated 27.11.97 June 97 to 13.10.97 5,06,419/- Total 14,49,714/- 6,14,381/- 6,32,053/- 4. The adjudicating authority dropped the show-cause notices giving the benefit of Notification No.67/95 to the appellants. But on appeal by the Revenue before the lower appellate authority it was held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ugs are exempts from whole of Central Excise duty, hence, prayed that the demands are sustainable. He also submitted that the show-cause notice No.38/CE/97 dated 12/07/97 is barred by limitation as there is no suppression of facts by the appellants. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submitted that the adjudicating authority has dropped the demand of show-cause notice on the basis that the appellants are entitled to take benefit of Notification No.67/95-CE, which is not entitled to the appellants as the same has been held by this Tribunal in the case of Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Vs. CCE, Hyderabad, reported in 2006 (205) ELT 199 (Tri-Bang). He further submitted that the reversal of 8% of the amount under Rule 57CC cannot be considered as duty o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vocate that they are entitled for the benefit of notification No.7/94 dated 01/03/94. But we are not in agreement with the submissions of the Ld. Advocate as in the said notification, the appellant is entitled for the benefit only on the manufacture of bulk drugs. In this case as discussed herein above, the appellants are the manufacturer of Ampicillion Sodium Injections, which cannot be termed as bulk drugs. Accordingly, the appellants are not entitled for the benefit of the said notification. Hence, the matter needs re-quantification of the demands for the period prior to 23/07/96, keeping the issue open on limitation also. It is also clear that prior to 23/07/96 the appellants have cleared their final products after reversal of 8% of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
