2016 (3) TMI 253 - AT - Customs

Entitlement - Benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus, dated 17.03.2012 - Import of Drugs claiming benefit of above notification denied by the department - Held that - beyond doubt that bulk drugs are also drugs . - by relying on the decision taken by the Tribunal in the case of Cipla Ltd., Vs. CC 2007 (8) TMI 131 - CESTAT, CHENNAI , the appellant is entitled to take benefit of the above said notification. - Decided against the revenue

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods under Notification No.12/2012-Cus at Sl. No.147(A) and 108(A) for duty exemption.

Analysis:
The appeal revolved around the classification of goods imported by the respondent under Notification No.12/2012-Cus at Sl. No.147(A) and 108(A) for duty exemption. The respondent imported Ursodeoxycholic Acid EP 6.0 and initially classified it under CTH 29420090 with the benefit of duty exemption under the said Notification. However, the adjudicating authority directed the respondent to seek benefits under Sl. No.147(b) and 108(b) respectively, denying the benefit of Sl. No.147(A) and 108(A). The Commissioner (Appeals) later held that the respondent was entitled to the benefits under Sl. No.147A and 108A, leading to the Revenue's appeal.

The Departmental Representative argued that since the goods were bulk drugs, they should be classified under 147B and 108B for the duty exemption. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel supported the impugned order's findings and relied on previous Tribunal decisions in similar cases.

Upon examining Notification No. 12/2012-Cus, the Tribunal considered the classification issue. Referring to the Tribunal's decision in the case of Cipla Ltd. Vs. CC, it was noted that the substantive question was whether the imported goods could be considered drugs under the relevant entry for duty exemption. The Tribunal held that since the imported bulk drugs were specifically mentioned in List 3, they fell under the category of drugs specified in the notification, entitling them to the benefits under the respective entries. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of strict interpretation of the language used in the notification entries, citing relevant legal precedents.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the issue was clearly covered by the decision in the case of Cipla Ltd. Vs. CC and upheld the impugned order, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The judgment highlighted the significance of proper classification based on the specific provisions of the notification and previous Tribunal decisions to determine eligibility for duty exemption under the relevant entries.