Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Mahadev Pharmaceuticals Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Chandigarh

2016 (2) TMI 249 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Area based exemption - notification No. 50/03-CE dated 10.6.2003 - denial of benefit as the appellant was not having electricity connection or DG set installed at the time of investigation - demanding duty along with interest and imposing penalty - Held that:- From the perusal of various documents, we find that appellants have installed machines which are evidence of manufacture of final products and they have license to manufacture from Drugs Controller. All the drugs manufactured also bears ba .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ial production started with effect from 30.3.2010. - The supplier of DG set (on rental basis) has also gave the statement that he has given DG set on rental basis to the appellant. On the basis of this statement of supplier, the appellant has filed the affidavit and same has not been controverted by the adjudicating authority with cogent evidence. In the absence of any contrary evidence, the statement of supplier of DG sets (on rental basis) is having evidential value. Further, in this case .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

11-2015 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. B Ravichandran, Member (Technical) For the Petitioner : Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri S Nunthuk, DR ORDER Per Ashok Jindal: The appellant is in appeal against the impugned orders demanding duty along with interest and imposing penalty on the appellant by denying the benefit of exemption notification No. 50/03-CE dated 10.6.2003. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of pharmaceutical pro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

, 2010 to March, 2014 was sought to be demanded by issuance of 4 show cause notices which were adjudicated by the impugned orders confirming demand of duty along with interest and imposition of penalty on the appellant. Aggrieved from the said order, appellant is before us.. 3. Shri Sudhir Malhotra, Advocate learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the appellant is a manufacturer of bulk drugs and filed a declaration with the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Shimla on 31.3.2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

spute. He further submits that office of the Superintendent Central Excise Range I, Parwanoo, Distt. Solan (HP)has given a report dated 19.4.2012 giving a finding that the appellant has correctly availed the benefit of notification. Further, the Asstt. Commissioner, Shimla vide letter dated 23.5.2012 also in his report held that documents produced by the appellant are OK and appellant has cleared their manufactured goods before cut off dates of production. The only ground denying the benefit o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the supplier of the DG set stating that the DG set was let out on rental basis to the appellant. This fact has not been contraverted by the adjudicating authority by any cogent evidence. He further submits that the appellant is a contract manufacturer and require a license to manufacture the drugs which has been obtained by the appellant from the Drug Controller with effect from 16.3.2010 and further medicines were allowed to be manufactured to the appellant by subsequent inspection report of th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

AR opposed the contention of the learned Counsel and submits that in this case, the appellants were not having any electricity connection or DG set at the time of clearance of goods. Therefore, manufacturing / commercial production cannot be started without electricity. In these circumstances, the adjudicating authority has rightly denied the exemption in question and consequently, confirmed the demand of duty. 5. Heard both the sides. Considered the submissions. 6. We find that in this case, t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version