Geno Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the applicants were not present they requested decision on merits appeal was allowed and taken up for disposal. on perusal of the facts and the arguments made.2. the appellants destroyed time-bar medications, on securing remission of duty in terms of rule 49(1) of the central excise rules, 1944, and reverse the modvat credit on the inputs gone into the destroyed product. later on they filed the refund claim citing rule 57d of the rules which permits modvat credit to be returned on inputs which have gone into by-product waste etc. the initial and the first appellate authorities having denied the relief, the present appeal has , been filed.3. the first grievance made in the appeal memorandum is that the impugned order is not a speaking order. i do [not] find any substance in this plea. the reliance on collector of c. ex. v. srichakra tyres ltd. [1990 (50) e.l.t. 314 (tribunal)] is misplaced since that case is related to classification of product. for the same reason the collector of central excise v. mysore polymers & rubber products (p) ltd. [1990 (48) e.l.t. 294 (tribunal)] is not relevant for that decision to apply the product intended to be generated as a good product should have become a waste product.4 the distinguishing feature in the present appeal is that the goods did not come into existence as waste or by-product during the manufacture but that due to constrain of another act and otherwise perfectly good product was destroyed. the provisions of rule 57d are not sufficient nor they are maintained to cover this situation

Judgment:
1. The applicants were not present they requested decision on merits appeal was allowed and taken up for disposal. On perusal of the facts and the arguments made.

2. The appellants destroyed time-bar medications, on securing remission of duty in terms of Rule 49(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and reverse the Modvat credit on the inputs gone into the destroyed product. Later on they filed the refund claim citing Rule 57D of the rules which permits Modvat credit to be returned on inputs which have gone into by-product waste etc. The initial and the first appellate authorities having denied the relief, the present appeal has , been filed.

3. The first grievance made in the appeal memorandum is that the impugned order is not a speaking order. I do [not] find any substance in this plea. The reliance on Collector of C. Ex. v. Srichakra Tyres Ltd. [1990 (50) E.L.T. 314 (Tribunal)] is misplaced since that case is related to classification of product. For the same reason the Collector of Central Excise v. Mysore Polymers & Rubber Products (P) Ltd. [1990 (48) E.L.T. 294 (Tribunal)] is not relevant for that decision to apply the product intended to be generated as a good product should have become a waste product.

4 The distinguishing feature in the present appeal is that the goods did not come into existence as waste or by-product during the manufacture but that due to constrain of another act and otherwise perfectly good product was destroyed. The provisions of Rule 57D are not sufficient nor they are maintained to cover this situation