9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 672 - AT - Central Excise100% EOU - Concessional rate of duty - sl. No. 80(A) of N/N. 21/2002-Cus. dated 1.3.2002 - clearance of goods Danazol in DTA - denial of benefit hat the respondents have not followed the condition covered under Entry No.80(B) of Notification and that the drug Danazol bulk drug would fall under 80(b). The bulk drug imported by the respondent is not eligible for concessional duty as Sl. No. 80(A) refers to Drug . Held that - The issue whether assessee is eligible for the benefit of Notification and whether the condition attached to S. No. 80(B) is only procedural one was considered by the Tribunal in various decisions and held in favor of the assessee - In the case of CIPLA Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai 2007 (8) TMI 131 - CESTAT, CHENNAI , it was held that admittedly, the bulk drugs imported by the appellants were specifically mentioned in List 3 appended to Sl. No. 80(A) of Customs Notification No. 21/02 and are liable to be considered as drugs mentioned at 80(A). It is beyond doubt that bulk drugs are also drugs . They are so defined under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995 also. Benefit of notification allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Department's appeal against the order setting aside demand, interest, and penalties for concessional rate of duty eligibility under Notification No.21/2002-Cus. Analysis: The case involved a dispute where the Department challenged the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that set aside the demand, interest, and penalties imposed on the respondents, who were manufacturers of bulk drugs under Chapter 29. The respondents, a 100% EOU, had cleared goods Danazol in DTA at a concessional rate of 5% BCD under sl. No. 80(A) of Notification No.21/2002-Cus. The Department contended that the respondents were not eligible for the concessional rate, leading to a show cause notice for duty demand, interest, and penalties. The original authority upheld the demand and penalties, but the Commissioner (Appeals) overturned this decision, prompting the Department's appeal. During the proceedings, the Department argued that the respondents did not meet the conditions of Entry No. 80(B) of the Notification, thereby denying them the benefit under Entry No. 80(A) for the drug "Danazol." The Tribunal analyzed previous decisions, including CIPLA Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai, and Commissioner of Central Excise, Hyderabad Vs. Hetero Drugs Ltd., which supported the view that the imported bulk drugs specified under List 3 of the Notification were eligible for the concessional duty under Entry No. 80(A). The Tribunal emphasized that the strict interpretation of the language used in the Notification entries, as guided by legal precedents, supported the respondents' eligibility for the benefit. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. In conclusion, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals) order, as it aligned with the legal interpretation established in previous cases. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the respondents' eligibility for the concessional duty rate under Notification No.21/2002-Cus.
|
