TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 784
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cenvat credit and paid duty on the final products. Majority of the final products were exported under claim of rebate. During the month of October 2011 for the period from April 2010 to March 2011, the audit team conducted the audit and submitted its report. On the basis of the said audit report, appellant was issued with a show cause notice dated 06.03.2013 for the period from 2008-09 to 2011-12 through which cenvat credit amounting to Rs.66,29,230/- was proposed to be recovered under Rule 14 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 read with proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 11A of Central Excise Act, 1944 which provides for issue of show cause notice for demanding of duty under extended period of limitation. It was contended in the said show ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....were not eligible for the same as they have rightly paid central excise duty. The said show cause notice was adjudicated through impugned order-in-original dated 31.07.2013 through which demand of erroneous cenvat credit of Rs.66,29,230/- was ordered to be recovered and equal penalty was imposed under Rule 15 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the bulk drugs manufactured by the appellant are conforming to the standard of pharmacopeia as can be seen from Drug Licence dated 02.02.2010 issued to the appellant by Department of Food and Drugs Administration as the goods manufactured by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds manufactured by the appellant was in accordance with law. He has further submitted that Revenue has not brought any evidence on record nor given any reasoning as to why the goods manufactured by the appellant were covered by serial No. 47A of Notification No.04/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006. 3. Heard the learned AR for Revenue. Learned AR has reiterated the findings of the original authority. 4. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and submissions. We note that in the present proceedings, Revenue has sought to disallow entire cenvat credit availed by the appellant on the inputs and input services utilized in the manufacture of goods on which central excise duty was paid and ER-1 returns were filed. We also find that Revenue....