M/S Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd vs Commissioner, Central Excise & Service ...

Appeal No.E/436/2008-DB [Arising out of OIA No.8/2008(Ahd-III)CE/KCG/Commr(A), dt.29.03.2008, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Service Tax, Ahmedabad]

M/s Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd Appellant

Vs

Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Ahmedabad-III Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: Shri S.J. Vyas, Advocate For Respondent: Shri T.K. Sikdar, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

CORAM:

HONBLE MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. P.M. SALEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 08.10.2015

Order No. A/11395/2015, dt.08.10.2015

Per: P.K. Das

After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the Appellant filed this appeal against rejection of the refund claim. The Appellant received bulk drugs without payment of duty under Notification No.6/2002-CE, dt.01.03.2002. A portion of the bulk drug was transferred to their Baddi unit. The Appellant paid the duty at the instance of the Central Excise officers on the bulk drugs transferred to Baddi unit and filed refund claims. According to the Revenue, as per the said notification, the Appellants is not entitled to transfer the goods from their unit to their sister unit.

2. The learned Advocate on behalf of the Appellant submits that the jurisdictional Central Excise officers of Baddi unit by letter dt.24.03.2008 confirmed the receipt of the goods by the Baddi unit, which was not considered by the lower authorites. He strongly relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Bangalore Vs Electronic Research Ltd  2005 (187) ELT 495 (Tri-Bang).

3. We find that the Adjudicating authority, while considering the scope of the notification, had not gone to the letter by the jurisdictional Central Excise officer of Baddi unit. In our considered view, the Adjudicating authority should have considered this evidence alongwith the case laws before taking this decision.

4. In view of the above discussion, we set aside the impugned order and the matter is remanded to the Adjudicating authority to decide afresh, after considering the evidence and the case law and to pass order in accordance with law. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

cbb 2