2019 (1) TMI 8 - AT - Customs

Non compliance of pre-deposit - exemption under N/N. 16/2000-Cus dated 01/03/2000 (Sno. 80) - manufacture of intravenous amino acids which contains carbohydrates and electrolytes - Held that - Since the appeal was dismissed by the Ld. Commissioner (A), for non compliance of pre-deposit and not decided the merit of the case, the matter needs to be remitted back to the Commissioner (A) - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for exemption under notification no. 16/2000-Cus dated 01/03/2000 for imported Amino acid used in the manufacture of intravenous amino acids containing carbohydrates and electrolytes.

Analysis:
The appeal in question was heard based on the directions of the Hon'ble High Court. The primary issue revolved around the eligibility of the appellant's imported Amino acid for exemption under a specific notification. The appellant's product was used in the manufacture of intravenous amino acids containing carbohydrates and electrolytes. The department argued that since the end product included not only Amino acids but also other inputs like carbohydrates and electrolytes, the imported goods did not qualify for the exemption specified in the notification.

The appellant's counsel relied on previous judgments to support their case. They cited the Tribunal's decision in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Vs. Tablets (India) Ltd., which was upheld by the Supreme Court in a subsequent case. Additionally, reference was made to the judgment in the case of Fresenius Kabi India Pvt. Ltd. to strengthen their argument.

On the other hand, the Revenue representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order and referred to a Board's Circular to support their stance that the appellant was not entitled to exemption if the goods contained ingredients other than amino acids, such as glucose or sorbitol.

After careful consideration of the submissions from both sides and a review of the records, the Tribunal concluded that the matter needed to be remitted back to the Commissioner (A) since the appeal had been dismissed due to non-compliance with pre-deposit without deciding the case on its merits. However, regarding the stay application, the Tribunal found that the appellant had a strong prima facie case in their favor based on previous judgments. As a result, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement and instructed the Commissioner (A) to hear the case on its merits. To expedite the process, the Commissioner (A) was directed to decide on the appeal within three months from the date of the Tribunal's order.