TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts was there and drugs were manufactured before cut of date for availing exemption under the notification in question. The electricity connection was also released on 31.3.2010. This fact is verified from the electricity bill issued to the appellant dated 7.5.2010. Further, during the course of hearing, the appellant has produced a certificate issued by the Department of Industries certifying that commercial 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conducted by Preventive officers of Central Excise Division, Shimla, the exemption availed by the appellant sought to be denied. Consequently, the duty for the impugned period i.e. March, 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 31.3.2010 for availment of benefit of notification No. 49-50/2003 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut 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 the Drug Inspector prior to 31.3.2010. He also submits that the manufactured drugs were having batch No., date of manufacturing etc. and cannot be sold in the market without complying with this requirement. This is admitted fact that these drugs have been sold in the market and therefore, it cannot be held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring, the appellant has produced a certificate issued by the Department of Industries certifying that commercial 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 the Range officer of Central Excise has inspected the factory premises of the appellant and held that appellant is entitled for benefit of exemptio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
