2019 (1) TMI 660

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellant Shri Ajay Kumar, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: S K Mohanty: This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 26/06/2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, LTU, Mumbai. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a 100% EOU, engaged in manufacturing of capsules/tablets of pharmaceutical formulations. The appellan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The show cause notice has alleged that under sub-rule (5) of Rule 3 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, the appellant was liable to pay an amount equal to the credit availed in respect of such input and the removal shall be made under the cover of invoice as prescribed under Rule 11 of the rules. The show cause notice issued by the department was adjudicated vide the impugned order dated 26/06/2009....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ory provisions deal with the situation of payment of equal amount of credit availed, when the inputs are removed "as such" from the factory. Thus, he submitted that confirmation of the adjudged demand by the original authority is not legal and proper. 4. On the other hand, Learned Authorised Representative appearing for revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order and further ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nufacturer to retain the CENVAT credit in respect of inputs removed as such or after it partially processed, when the same are sent to a job-worker for further processing. The said sub-rule mandates that the inputs or the resultant product manufactured therefrom have to be received back by the manufacturer within 180 days of their being sent from the factory. In the present case, it is undisputed ....