2017 (9) TMI 1275 - AT - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 21/2002-Cus. dt. 1.3.2002 under Sl.No.80(B) - concessional rate of duty - import of bulk drug, Zidovudine - Revenue alleged that appellants are not eligible for such concession rate of duty as they have not fulfilled the conditions set out in Sl.No.80(B) of the notification - appellant claims that the procedure attached to Sl.No.80(B) is not a substantive one and being only a procedural condition, the non- compliance of the same would not disentitle the appellant of the substantive benefit - Held that - It is not disputed that Zidovudine is specifically listed in List 3 against Sl.No.80(A) of the said notification. Against Sl.No.80(A), there is no condition attached - similar issue decided in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD Versus HETERO DRUGS LTD. 2009 (7) TMI 1139 - CESTAT BANGALORE , where it was held that there is no definition of bulk drugs in the Notification involved. As per the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995, drugs also include bulk drugs. The item Lopinavir figures in List 3 of N/N. 21/2002-Cus and exemption is allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Eligibility for concessional duty under Customs Notification No.21/2002-Cus.
2. Interpretation of conditions under Sl.No.80(A) and Sl.No.80(B) of the notification.
3. Compliance with procedural conditions for concessional duty.
4. Applicability of case laws in similar matters.

Analysis:

1. The case involved the appellant's import of Zidovudine under Customs Notification No.21/2002-Cus. The appellant claimed the benefit of concessional duty under Sl.No.80(B) but failed to fulfill the prescribed conditions. The Revenue alleged ineligibility due to non-compliance, leading to a demand for differential duty, interest, and penalty.

2. The appellant argued that Zidovudine should be eligible for concessional duty under Sl.No.80(A) as a drug, contending that the condition under Sl.No.80(B) was procedural and non-compliance should not negate the substantive benefit. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision based on the declaration of goods as bulk drugs.

3. The Tribunal considered the specific listing of Zidovudine under Sl.No.80(A) without attached conditions. The appellant's argument that the condition under Sl.No.80(B) was procedural was supported by case laws like CIPLA Ltd. and CCE Hyderabad, emphasizing the strict interpretation of notification language to grant benefits.

4. Referring to the case of M/s.Biocon Ltd. Vs CC Chennai, the Tribunal concluded that non-compliance with procedural conditions under Sl.No.80(B) should not deny the benefit, especially when Sl.No.80(A) had no conditions. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any, as per law.

In summary, the judgment clarified the interpretation of conditions under Customs Notification No.21/2002-Cus regarding concessional duty eligibility for imported drugs, emphasizing the distinction between substantive and procedural requirements and the relevance of specific case laws in determining benefit entitlement.