AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 1225
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....05/C-III/EB dated 26.9.2006 of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, (CESTAT) West Zonal Bench at Mumbai. The said proceeding was filed by present respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to challenge the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad in proceeding No. 31/CEX/2001 dated 26.12.2001. It appears that during pendency of the present proceeding, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 paid the penalty amount imposed by the Commissioner. The steps were not taken by the appellant to serve respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the proceeding was dismissed as against them on 22.11.2011. The payment of penalty came to be made on 22.1.2012. Both the sides are heard. 2) The respondent company is engaged in manufacture of medicine falli....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nventory and though separate Bin Cards were kept, they were for only some cases and in many cases inputs were issued directly from common Bin Card for manufacture of exempted goods or dutiable goods. The Commissioner, the adjudicating authority found that this was done to mislead the department and to show that separate inventories were maintained. In view of these circumstances, the circumstance that in some cases, the assessee had reversed the credit of inputs used in exempted products was not considered in favour of the assessee as it was not regular practice. Only in some cases like October 1996, February 1997 to June 1997, December 1997, January and February 1998, May 1998 and August 1998 the assessee had reversed the credit. But, for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er hearing both the sides, the Commissioner had made order under challenge by giving following reasons :- "- the assessee has suppressed the facts of availment of modvat credit on common inputs. - the maintenance of separate Bin Cards for exempted products was intentional to show that the separate inventory was being maintained, however the facts are that the separate inventory was not maintained, but only an entry was made by transferring inputs on which modvat credit was availed from common Bin Card to the Bin Card of the said input maintained for exempted products. The assessee had suppressed the facts of reversal also, by not submitting the detailed working of reversal giving detail remark as to for what purpose the said amount....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of law were formulated, the aforesaid discussion shows that relevant material is not at all considered by the CESTAT and that also becomes substantial question of law. Following were the three substantial questions of law formulated by this Court on 28.8.2006 for admitting the appeal. (1) Whether, the respondent assessee had contravened the provisions of Rule 57-CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 ? (2) Whether, the respondent assessee having availed the Modavat Credit under Rule 57-A on common inputs but having failed to pay @ 8% on the exempted product nor having maintained the separate inventory for the inputs used for the manufacture and exempted product amounts to contravention of Rule 57-CC of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 ? ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (244) E.L.T. 321 (Bom.) [Commissioner of C. Ex. Thane-I Vs. Nicholas Piramal (India) Ltd.]. This order is in respect of the present assessee, though during pendency the factory was transferred to Encore. The period involved was March 2002 to December 2003. In that matter also CESTAT had decided in favour of the company and the proceeding filed in the High Court by the department came to be allowed with following observations :- "If however an assessee can reverse the credit on the final product, before the goods are taken out of the factory, we fail to understand why on the same basis it is not possible to maintain records of the very same inputs which are used in the manufacture of final products at an intermediate stage... The rule ma....