9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (12) TMI 252X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tle from "May & Baker (India) Limited" to "Rhone Poulenc (India) Limited". 3. The appellants imported "PHOLCODINE B.P., a narcotic drug, on which the customs authorities levied additional duty of customs corresponding to the central excise duty leviable on goods falling under Item 14E of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 ('CET', for short) read with the provisions of Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 (M.T.P. Act, for short). The appellants filed claims for refund of the said duty on the ground that the goods being a bulk drug were exempted from payment of additional duty of customs in terms of Central Excise Exemption Notification No. 234/82 and 234/86. It was also contended that no additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C - Bochringer Knoll Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay. After going through the said order, the Collector (Appeals) came to the conclusion that the case of the appellants was similar and found that the goods, being imported in bulk, would be out of the ambit of the M.T.P. Act and, being a narcotic drug, would be out of the scope of Item 68 as well as 14E of the CET. The Collector observed that neither at the original stage nor at the appellate stage, the issue of excisability was at all raised by the appellants; they had only claimed exemption with reference to Central Excise Notification 234/82. Thereafter he proceeded to consider whether, in these circumstances, he, as appellate authority, could consider the claim and, after perusing c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he matter because the issue was not properly put forward at the earlier stage of the proceedings. He is completely in error when he says that he had no option but to reject the appeals. There was the option (indeed the duty) to dispose of the appeals on their merits either in the light of the Tribunal's order or, if the facts were distinguishable, on the basis of his own independent judgment. In the case of Bochringer Knoll Ltd. (supra), the issue was whether 'Dihydrocodeinone Hydrochloride' was liable to be charged with additional duty of customs. As in that case, there is no dispute in the present case also that the imported substance is a narcotic drug. Nor is there any dispute that the imported substance is a preparation. Applying the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
