2004 (6) TMI 369

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d Consultant, submitted that the issue decided by the Final Order in question was whether the re-processing operations undertaken by the Applicants on the duty paid bulk drugs, received under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 amounts to deemed manufacture in terms of Note 11 to Chapter 29 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act; that the Tribunal has upheld both the Orders-in-Original dated 15-11-2002 and 4-3-2003 on merits by holding that the re-processing operations undertaken by them amounts to deemed manufacture in terms of the third ingredient in Note 11 to Chapter 29 of the Tariff; that the Tribunal has also held in Para 9 of the Final Order in question that the extended period of limitation for demanding duty is in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....either in the show cause notice dated 12-3-2001 or in the Order-in-Original dated 15-11-2002 and as such the question of their rebuttal by them does not arise at all. 4.  Opposing the prayer, Shri Kumar Santosh, learned Senior Departmental Representative, submitted that the synopsis submitted by the learned Consultant at the time of hearing clearly mentions that "the Commissioner has held that the 3rd ingredient to the above Chapter Note, namely, "or the adoption of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer" would be attracted to the facts of the case for the following reasons (a) ..... (b) value addition to the reprocessed goods, (c) ....."; that thus it cannot be claimed by the Applicants that there is a....