TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 680
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt had been clearing the goods 'Danazol' without payment of duty by claiming exemption under Sl. No. 47A of the Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006. However, the department felt that the impugned goods would get covered under Sl. No. 47B of the said Notification according to which when the goods are used elsewhere other than the factory of production, exemption shall be allowed only if the procedure laid down in the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 is followed. Since the appellant had cleared the product 'Danazol' to other manufacturers like M/s. Arvind Remedies without following the above Rules, it appeared that the appellant was not eligible for exemption u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 47A ibid claimed by the appellants, as the heading covered only 'drugs or medicines'. While goods falling under Sl. No. 47A are exempt from duty unconditionally, goods falling under Sl. No. 47B are exempt from duty subject to fulfillment of certain conditions, which the appellant failed to meet, whereby the impugned order has confirmed the demand for duty while setting aside the penalties. The consultant has relied on the following judgments of the Tribunal in support of his stand that the term 'drug' has to be considered to include 'bulk drug' and the impugned goods are entitled for the benefit of the Notification 4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 under Sl. No. 47A. He prayed that the impugned order may be set aside with consequential relief. a.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nition as per Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995 is relevant. As per Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1995, the term 'drug' have been defined to include 'bulk drug' and formulations. An identical matter was decided by a Division Bench of this Tribunal in the appellant's own case [Final Order Nos. 40939 and 40940/2023 dated 19.10.2023]. The Bench speaking through Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical) held as under:- "8. Two issues arise for consideration:- (i) Whether the product 'Danazol' which is a 'bulk drug' would fall under Sl. No. 47A of Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006 or it has to be considered as 'drug or medicine' which falls under Sl. No. 47B of the said Notification. (ii) In case the goods fall under Sl. No. 47A of Not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ause Notices were issued to the appellant denying unconditional exemption for 'Danazol' under Sl. No. 47A of Notification No.4/2006-CE. Subsequently, they took the stand that the appellant is entitled for the benefit of Sl. No. 47A of Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 1.3.2006, however, the appellant is required to reverse the credit/ pay the amount demanded as a percentage of sale value of the exempted goods 'Danazol', as per law during the relevant period, under Rule 6(3) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. We find that there has been some confusion in the minds of the department and they have blown hot and cold on the same issue at different points of time. Now that we have held that the appellant is eligible for the exemption under Sl. No. 47A....