9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Eligibility for exemption under Notification 64/79 for imported goods used in drug manufacture.
In this case, the main issue revolves around the eligibility of goods imported for the benefit of exemption under Notification 64/79, which partially exempts specified raw materials used for drug manufacturing from customs duty. The appellants imported acetonitrile in three shipments for manufacturing the Sodium Salt of sulpha somidine, which was further converted into the bulk drug sulpha somidine. The Customs Department required the conversion of acetonitrile to take place in the appellants' own factory to claim the concessional duty rate under the notification. The refund claims for the three consignments were initially rejected due to lack of evidence of the goods' usage in drug manufacturing. The Collector (Appeals) granted the benefit of the Notification for consignments No. 1 and 2 but rejected the appeal for consignment No. 3, leading to the current appeal. The primary contention was the rejection of refund claims by the Assistant Collector based on the absence of the original end-use certificate. The Tribunal remanded the matter for reconsideration due to confusion in processing the claims and the submission of the end-use certificate by the appellants. The Department argued that the goods were used for drug intermediate, not a drug, based on a photocopy of a certificate, and dismissed a letter from a third party confirming the usage for drug manufacturing. However, the appellants consistently claimed submission of an end-use certificate issued by Central Excise authorities, which detailed the consumption of acetonitrile in drug manufacturing. The Tribunal found the Department's contentions unsubstantiated, accepted the certificate's validity, and rejected the Department's argument that importers should manufacture the drugs themselves based on the notification's language. Upon careful consideration of submissions and the end-use certificate, the Tribunal held that the importers were entitled to the concessional duty rate under Notification 64/79-Cus. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief deemed necessary.
|
