Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Dr.Reddy'S Laboratories ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 2 February, 2018
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH REGIONAL BENCH AT HYDERABAD BENCH - DB COURT - I Appeal(s) Involved: E/479/2008-DB (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 3/2008 dated 31/03/2008 passed by Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise Hyderabad) DR.REDDY'S LABORATORIES LTD.,(UNIT-I), Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax HYDERABAD-I Respondent(s) Appearance: Mr. B. Seshagiri Rao, Adv for the Appellant. Mr. B. Chandra Bose, A.R. for the Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE Mr. M.V.RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE Mr. MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 02/02/2018 Date of Decision: 02/02/2018 Final Order No. A/ 30172 / 2018 [Order per: M.V.RAVINDRAN] .
This appeal is directed against order-in-Original No. 3/2008-(C.E.) Commr dated 31.03.2008.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The issue that falls for consideration in this case is whether the appellant herein is required to reverse 5% or 10% of the value of the formulations which are cleared from the factory premises as exempted goods having utilised common inputs for manufacturing of bulk drugs and subsequently consuming the said bulk drugs, which are also exempted for the manufacturing of such formulations. It is the case of the Revenue that having consumed common inputs for the manufacturing of bulk drugs which are captively consumed, appellant should have reversed 8% of the value of the formulations which are cleared and which are exempted while it is the case of the appellant that they have already reversed 10% of the value of the bulk drugs when they have cleared the same within the factory premises for captive consumption. Learned counsel submits that identical issue for the earlier period and subsequent to the period in question i.e. January 2007 to September 2007 in this case, the Tribunal vide Final order No 432- 433/2009 dated 17.03.2009 on identical issue has held in favour of the appellant.
4. On perusal of the said orders dated 17.03.2009 and 16.07.2009 we find it so. Both sides could not produce any contrary decision and also could not confirm or deny as to whether the said orders were taken up in appeal or otherwise. Since the issue stands settled in the appellant's own case, respectfully following the ratio laid down in those cases, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open court) MADHU MOHAN DAMODHAR MEMBER (TECHNICAL) M.V.RAVINDRAN MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Neela Reddy 2