2003 (10) TMI 510

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. 2. Shri B.L. Narsimhan, learned Advocate, submitted that the Commissioner under the impugned Order, has confirmed the demand of Central Excise duty amounting to Rs. 22,02,829/-; that out of the total amount of duty confirmed, they are not challenging confirmation of demand of duty amounting to Rs. 7.2 lakhs relating to Lovastatin. Learned Advocate, further, submitted that the Appellants manufacture various bulk drugs which are cleared by them on payment of duty to their various units. They are also selling the bulk drugs to various other drugs medicine manufacturer; that whenever the bulk drug is found to be defective in nature, the same is returned back to their factory either under the provis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9 (T)] has allowed their Appeal following the decision in the case of M/s. Pepsi Food Pvt. Ltd. Final Order No. 207/2002-D, dated 27-8-2002 [2003 (154) E.L.T. 387 (T)]; that the Appeal filed by the Revenue against the decision in Pepsi Food case has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 10-2-2003 after condoning the delay. He also has relied upon the decision in the case of Lincoln Parentarals Ltd. v. CCE, Ahmedabad-II [2003 (154) E.L.T. 419 (T) = 2003 (56) RLT 879 CEGAT]. 2.2 Learned Advocate, further, mentioned that demand of duty of Rs. 88,513/- has been confirmed in respect of consignment of Histic Tablets received back as the wrong MRP was printed on the tablets; that after printings the correct MRP, they had cleared the said ....