2007 (8) TMI 131 - AT - Customs

Exemption Appellant claimed the benefit of Notification NO. 21/2002-Cus. in respect to BCD and Notification NO. 4/2006-CE in respect to CVD on the bulk drug imported by the himself but denied by department on the ground that said notification applicable for drug not for bulk drug Held that no difference in both and allowed benefit

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.
2. Compliance with condition No. 5 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.
3. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 4/2006-CE.
4. Claiming exemption benefits at the appellate stage.
5. Timeliness of the appeal against the assessment order.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.:
The appellants imported bulk drugs and later sought the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. (Sl. No. 80 read with List No. 3) for Basic Customs Duty (BCD). The appellate authority acknowledged that the imported goods were listed in List No. 3 attached to Sl. No. 80 of the Notification. However, it differentiated between "drugs" and "bulk drugs," concluding that the imported goods fell under Sl. No. 80(B), not 80(A), and thus were not eligible for the exemption as "drugs."

2. Compliance with condition No. 5 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.:
The appellate authority denied the benefit under Sl. No. 80(B) because the appellants did not comply with condition No. 5, which required following the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996. This condition ensures that imported bulk drugs are used to manufacture medicines under Central Excise supervision to prevent misuse.

3. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 4/2006-CE:
The appellants also sought the benefit of Notification No. 4/2006-CE (Sl. No. 47) for countervailing duty (CVD). The relevant entry required compliance with the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001. The appellate authority's denial was based on the same reasoning applied to the customs notification.

4. Claiming exemption benefits at the appellate stage:
The Tribunal referenced the Share Medical Care v. Union of India case, establishing that exemption benefits can be claimed at the appellate stage. This precedent invalidated the argument that the appellants could not claim the exemption because they did not do so at the time of import.

5. Timeliness of the appeal against the assessment order:
Regarding the appeal against Bill of Entry No. 184992 dated 3-7-2006, the appellate authority dismissed it as time-barred. The Tribunal, considering the delivery date of the assessed Bill of Entry (2-8-2006) and the appeal filing date (9-10-2006), concluded the appeal was within the condonable period. The Tribunal referenced the Redington India Ltd. v. Commissioner case to support its decision to condone the short delay.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the imported bulk drugs, listed in List 3, should be considered "drugs" under Sl. No. 80(A) of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., granting the appellants the exemption for BCD. Consequently, the benefit under Sl. No. 47(A) of Notification No. 4/2006-CE for CVD was also applicable. The Tribunal set aside the appellate authority's orders and allowed all appeals, including the one dismissed on the ground of limitation, thereby condoning the delay.