2018 (11) TMI 962

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rom M/s Divi's Laboratories Ltd. under concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 6/2002 dated 01.03.2002 as amended against Annexure-45 No. 175 dated 15.09.2005 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Division: Kalol. The appellant used the said goods to manufacture finished goods as required under the Notification, however, the said goods namely, Dudopa CR Tab manufactured by them was found to be not up to mark and the said product were rejected in the quality Control. Consequently, the said product was destroyed as per Annexure-I dated 29.05.2007. As per records available with then the input namely, carbidopa was used during 05.09.2005 to 19.10.2005 and during said period 24L of the final product Dudopa CR Tab. The Ld.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Goods) Rules, 2001, is followed." 3. From the above, it is apparent the exemption is available to the goods used for manufacture of specified drugs or medicines subject to the following of procedure prescribed under Condition 5 above. Ld. Counsel argued that it is not necessary for them to manufacture the finished goods. Condition No.5 simply prescribes that the goods should be used for the intended purpose and it is not necessary to manufacture the finished goods. He argued in the instant case the intermediate goods, namely, Tablets were found to be not to the quality standards and therefore, the same were destroyed, however that does not change the fact that the goods procured by them under the said Notification were used for the inte....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd that the column in the bottom shows date of 20.07.2005 whereas the actual report is claimed to have been made on 29.05.2007. The defense of the appellant is that the said proforma was made as a result of efforts of a team to draft the standards operating procedure for such disposition. The draft finalized by the said team contains a row in the bottom which shows the date when the said proforma for making the disposition report was approved. It has been argued that in all the disposition report said date and signature at the bottom would appear, as a part of the profroma, not as part of the report. 7. We find significant force in the arguments of the appellants as can be seen from the standards operating procedure report submitted by t....