9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal transferred to Tribunal for disposal under Customs Act, 1962 - Request for adjournment denied - Confusion in filing appeals - Dispute over Excise Notification No. 55/75 applicability for Para-Chloro Benzoic Acid - Definition of drug intermediate - Certificate from Food and Drugs Control Administration - Departmental Representative's support for impugned order - Interpretation of Notification No. 55/75 - Previous Tribunal decision on similar case. Analysis: The judgment pertains to appeals initially filed as a Revision Application to the Central Government, transferred to the Tribunal for disposal under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants sought adjournment citing scheduling conflicts, but the Tribunal denied the request, emphasizing the importance of timely proceedings to avoid wastage of public resources. The Tribunal noted confusion in filing appeals, clarifying that only 3 out of 4 appeals were valid against specific orders. The dispute centered on the applicability of Excise Notification No. 55/75 to Para-Chloro Benzoic Acid, with the appellants claiming it as a drug intermediate for manufacturing drugs. The Appellate Collector had rejected the appeals, stating that the chemical had versatile uses beyond drug manufacturing, thus not meeting the criteria for the excise duty exemption. However, the appellants argued that the chemical was structurally incorporated into the final drug, Mebendazole, supported by a certificate from the Food and Drugs Control Administration. The Departmental Representative upheld the impugned order, leading to a detailed analysis by the Tribunal. In its decision, the Tribunal referenced a previous case involving glyoxal as a drug intermediate, where duty exemption was granted despite other uses. Considering the chemical's role as a drug intermediate and its usage in drug manufacturing, supported by the certificate, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals and directing relief to the appellants within three months. The judgment highlights the importance of meeting the criteria for duty exemptions under relevant notifications and the significance of supporting documentation from regulatory authorities. Overall, the Tribunal's decision focused on interpreting the excise duty exemption criteria, emphasizing the specific use of chemicals as drug intermediates in the manufacturing process. The judgment serves as a precedent for similar cases involving the classification of chemicals for duty exemptions based on their intended use in drug production, reinforcing the need for clarity and supporting evidence in such disputes.
|
