Alfred Berg & Co., (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise-II, Appeals II, Chennai
Central Excise
2018 (12) TMI 427 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 6-12-2018
Appeal No. E\/41565\/2018 – FINAL ORDER No. 43003\/2018
Central Excise
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)
\nSh. M.N. Bharathi, Advocate For the Appellant
\nShri L. Nanda Kumar, AC (AR) For the Respondent
\nORDER
\nThe appellants are engaged in manufacturing medicines. The allegation of the department is that they removed one input namely Ephedrine HCL on which MODVAT Credit to the tune of Rs. 6,72,397\/- was taken, in the guise of Ephedrine Tablets IP on payment of duty by raising invoices though they had not manufactured the same. Show cause notice dt.10\/6\/2003 was issued demanding duty alongwith interest on the inputs cleared as such and also proposing to appropriate the amount of Rs. 2,87,986\/- paid by them on 14\/2\/2000. After due process of law, the original authority<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Rs. 24,490\/- and therefore the confirmation of demand cannot sustain. It is argued by him that Ephedrine Powder was the input and the appellant had cleared them as tablets by paying duty. Though the duty was paid on the items which were removed, the department has not taken into consideration this aspect. During the relevant period, Ephedrine was not a controlled substance coming within the purview of NDPS Act, 1986. It was later brought within the purview of the Act. The appellant having paid duty, the demand raised again cannot sustain. On penalty, he argued that since the appellant has furnished all invoices showing the payment of duty at the time of removal and much before the issuance of show cause notice, he pleaded that the penalties may be set aside. That these would show that appellant is not guilty of suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of duty. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n wrong availment of MODVAT Credit was taken up for adjudication. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Alfred Berg & Co., (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise-II, Appeals II, ChennaiCentral Excise2018 (12) TMI 427 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 6-12-2018Appeal No. E\/41565\/2018 – FINAL ORDER No. 43003\/2018Central ExciseMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) Sh. M.N. Bharathi, Advocate For the Appellant Shri L. Nanda Kumar, AC … Continue reading “Alfred Berg & Co., (I) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise-II, Appeals II, Chennai”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15427","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15427","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15427"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15427\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15427"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15427"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15427"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. The Ld.AR, Sh.L.Nanda Kumar appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that the appellants had cleared the i<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n6. The Show cause notice is highly vague and does not give the exact allegation. It is presumed to be alleged that appellant removed inputs as such without reversing the credit and has contravened provisions of 57F. But then it is also stated that inputs are removed as tablets. When the inputs are Ephedrine Powder, then the removal in the form of tablets will not be removal as such requiring reversal of credit. If they are removed as Ephedrine tablets after manufacture then these attract Central Excise duty. The appellants contend that they have paid the excise duty after raising invoices. For the total quantity alleged to have been removed appellants have paid central excise duty of Rs. 6,96,887\/- (Rs.4,08,901\/- + Rs. 2,87,986\/-). From the facts narrated in the show cause notice, it is not clear whether the allegation is inputs were removed as such or whether Ephedrine tablets manufactured were removed without payment o<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n