2004 (8) TMI 150 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 17/95 for exemption eligibility of Robenidine Hydrochloride.
2. Scope of substitution in Notification No. 161/95 and its impact on the exemption claim.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported Robenidine Hydrochloride and sought assessment under CTH 2942 with reference to Notification No. 17/95, which exempts duty on Robenidine. However, the authorities contended that the imported product differed from what was specified in the notification. The appellant argued that Notification No. 161/95 substituted Robenidine with Robenidine HCL, indicating the intention to cover the salt form under the exemption. The Tribunal noted that Robenidine had always been imported as Robenidine HCL, supported by the Government's recognition of the mistake in the initial notification. The Tribunal held that the substitution in the later notification clarified the intended coverage of Robenidine in its salt form, making the appellant eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 17/95.

2. The lower appellate authority emphasized strict interpretation of notifications and rejected the appellant's claim, stating that statutory benefits for Robenidine could not be extended to Robenidine HCL. However, the Tribunal observed that the substitution in Notification No. 161/95 from Robenidine to Robenidine HCL indicated the Government's intent to include the salt form for exemption. The Tribunal reasoned that if the Government intended to add Robenidine HCL separately, it would have done so without substitution. While acknowledging the principle of no retrospective effect unless specified, the Tribunal clarified that the case involved interpretation based on the substitution in the subsequent notification. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, overturning the Commissioner (Appeals) decision and confirming the appellant's entitlement to the exemption under Notification No. 17/95.