Page 58 - ELT_1_1st April 2020_Vol 372_Part

A32 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

Appeals are admitted.
Liberty to file rejoinder affidavit, as prayed, is granted.”
The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that the allega-
tion of misuse of Area Based Exemption under Notification No. 50/2003-C.E.,
dated 10-6-2003 on the ground that the quantity of goods shown in Electroplat-
ing Production Reports/Work Order Progress Chart higher than that shown in
RG-1 Register was not sustainable when the assessee had offered explanation by
way of affidavit stating that the goods were sent for further processing to sister
unit and if any defect found, same were returned for rectification of defect which
resulted in reflection of more quantity in Electroplating Production Re-
ports/Work Order Progress Chart than entered in RG-1.
2. The Tribunal further held that merely on the basis of the statements
of raw material suppliers that they had issued only invoices without actually
supplying inputs, denial of Cenvat credit without any corroborative evidence
and without affording cross-examination of such suppliers was not justified par-
ticularly when the statements of the transporters were not recorded.
3. It was also held that Rule 9 read with Rule 8 of Central Excise Valua-
tion (Determination of Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2000 was not applicable
for valuation of goods cleared to sister unit when similar goods cleared to inde-
pendent buyers at the same price.
REPRESENTED BY : Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR, Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Ms.
Sunita Rao and Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Advocates, for the
Appellant.
Mr. Rupesh Kumar, AOR, Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava,
Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Ms. Neelam Sharma, Mr. Pravesh
Bahuguna, Ms. Yasvi Nagar and Mr. Harish Fulara,
Advocates, for the Respondent.

Isotope compound whether leviable to Excise duty due to
reported short shelf life?
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M.
Khanwilkar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari on 27-1-2020 after con-
doning the delay admitted the Civil Appeal Diary No. 46095 of 2019 filed by
Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida against the CESTAT Final Order No.
A/71424/2017-EX(DB), dated 25-9-2017 as reported in 2018 (363) E.L.T. 647 (Tri.-
All.) [IBA Molecular Imaging (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner).
The Appellate Tribunal in its impugned order had held that Isotope
compound 18F-FDG was having short life as it is a short lived positron emitting
radioactive isotope suitable for Positron Emission Tomography and having half-
life period of 109.8. It starts decaying the moment it comes into existence and
reduces to half of its weight within time which was called ‘half-life period’. Such
goods do not have any shelf life and not chargeable to duty.
REPRESENTED BY : Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, ASG, Mr. B. Krishna
Prasad, AOR, Mr. Anmol Chandan, Ms. Binu Tamta
and Mr. Santosh Paul Rebello, Advocates, for the Ap-
pellant.

EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st April 2020  106