2006 (9) TMI 401

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....various depots/warehouses and stockists. They decided to bring back such tablets and undertook the process of de-foiling and re foiling the same and printing new MRP required under the Rules. They took Modvat credit of the duty paid on Ciplox 750 mg tablets brought back and after de-foiling, they removed the goods at a lower MRP by paying duty once again, by considering the process of de-foiling and re-foiling as amounting to manufacture in terms of Note 5 to Chapter 30, where medicaments are classified. 2.  They filed regular declarations in terms of Rule 57G by declaring Ciplox 750 mg as an input and re-foiling Ciplox has final product. 3. Similarly they also brought back Ciplo 250 mg and Ciplo 500 mg tables from warehouse....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... undertaken did not amount to manufacture and Note 5 to Chapter 30 was not applicable to such process undertaken by the manufacturer. The demands were confirmed vide the order dated 20-1-2000 impugned invoking the extended period of limitation provided under Rule 57I read with Section 11A. 7. In May, 2003, in the proceedings initiated against the de-foiling centre and the denial of credit of Rs. 98,24,286/- was settled before the Settlement Commission, Mumbai. 8. After hearing both sides, in these appeals filed, we find that: (a)     For various reasons like price reduction etc., some time, the medicines already cleared to the depots are returned to the factory for the purpose of de-foiling and re-foil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....involved is the same on which originally Excise duty was levied and discharged i.e. packing and re-packing and re-labelling; and under identical circumstances, the Tribunal in Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. CCE - 2004 (170) E.L.T. 411 (T) has held that such process would amount to manufacture. We have no reason to disagree. (c)     This demand is barred by limitation under Rule 57-I as well as under Section 11A, since the appellants have specifically filed declarations indicating the input as Ciplox tablets (bulk) and the final product as Ciplox in 10's which is apparent from the declarations filed. The fact that Modvat credit was to be availed was therefore held is the invoices on which credit was availed at their f....