TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (7) TMI 52
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Central Excise Department for manufacture of several goods classifiable under Central Excise Tariff Head 2933 29 90, 2935 00 90, 2922 49 30, 2933 59 70 etc. They also provide output service such as research work, analytical work etc., and also have obtained service tax registration from the department. Being a 100% EOU, they were not able to utilise the cenvat credit on the input/input services used in manufacture of goods and provision of services which were exported. Accordingly, they filed refund claims for the unutilised cenvat credit under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Of these refund claims, five were sanctioned by the original authority against which the Revenue appealed to the First Appellate Authority. Two were rejec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt appeal is filed are as follows: (i) M/s TCG Life Science Limited is registered as a 100% EOU and is bonded by Customs. It is basically engaged in Research and Testing of certain reagents for their clients who are based abroad under an agreement. The unit is registered as a Commercial R & D Company by the Department of Science and Technology (DSIR), New Delhi and is exempted from Income Tax. It is basically functioning as outsourcing agency for their clients against payment for the services rendered. The reagents received by them as free samples having no commercial value were tested in their laboratory for further manufacture and development of new biological reagents which may be useful for generation of new drugs as per requirement ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Notification No. 41/2007-ST, dated 06.10.07. (iii) The Commissioner (A) misunderstood the scope of manufacture for the purpose of Central Excise and Exim Policy for EOUs. The scope of manufacture is rigid and limited as per Central Excise Act but liberal and wide as per exim policy for EOUs. (iv) The Commissioner (A) categorically confirmed that the said is engaged in providing services of Technical Testing and Analysis but he also held that the said exporter is engaged in manufacture. Thus, the Order passed by the Commissioner contains contradictory elements. (v) The said exporter was not producing or manufacturing any compounds but only engaged in Analysis and Testing without bringing about any change to the samples provid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ey have also taken a license for manufacture of goods under bond under section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962 which was also sanctioned by the Department. They manufacture products falling under Central Excise Tariff 29.22, 29.32 and 29.35 out of the inputs-indigeneous by procured or imported. They enclosed sample input invoices as well as sample final product invoices. They would submit that they sell some products to the Domestic Tariff Area also as manufacturer of goods on payment of central excise duty which has been never disputed by the department. They have been filing ER-1 returns regularly which have not been disputed by the department. The impugned goods were exported under shipping bills cleared their customs and manufactured goods.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the respondent is indeed registered for manufacture of excisable goods by the department themselves. Central excise tariff heads of the goods which are manufactured are also indicated. We are sure, if the department had gone through these documents, they would have had no doubt that the respondent is manufacturing excisable goods. It is also not in dispute that the respondent has been filing ER-1 returns and also been clearing some manufactured goods on payment of excise duty to Domestic Tariff Area. In view of the above, we find that the entire argument that the respondent is not a manufacturer of excisable goods is without any force. 8. As far as the service tax is concerned, we find that the respondent has also been registered und....