9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (7) TMI 435X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority confirmed demand of total amount of duty of over Rs. 55 lakhs against the appellants under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act in respect of a medicinal item, viz. Zidovudine imported by them and cleared under two Bills of Entry, one of these Bills dated 6-7-04 and the other dated 30-7-04. Aggrieved by the order of that authority, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) and also filed therein an application for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the duty amount. The said application was disposed of on 12-1-06 without hearing the party. The appellate Commissioner s interim order dated 12-1-06 directed the assessee to pre-deposit 75% of the duty amount on or before 25-2-2006. That order a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the assessee in respect of the item imported by them. This Notification, as it stood prior to 9-7-04 (the date on which the relevant entry in the Notification was amended) provided effective rate of duty as 5% for (A) Drugs or medicines specified in List 3 and (B) Bulk drugs used in the manufacture of the drugs or medicines at (A) above vide Sl. No. 80 in the table annexed to the Notification. Prior to 9-7-2004, the effective rate of CVD for bulk drugs was nil . After the said date, by virtue of the amendment to the Notification, there was no rate prescribed for CV duty on bulk drugs. For the entire period, there was a condition attached to bulk drugs, which was to the effect that the procedure set out in the Customs (Import of Goods at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, ld. SDR claims support from the Supreme Court s judgment in Sarahhai M. Chemicals v. CCE, Vadodara [2005 (179) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.)], wherein an end-use condition prescribed in a Notification was enforced by the Apex Court. 3. After examining the records and considering the submissions, we find that the import documents present the goods in bulk quantities. This is not in dispute. Hence, in the conflict between (A) and (B) under Sl. No. 80 of the Notification, we think, we must prefer (B) covering bulk drugs used in the manufacture of the items mentioned in (A) . For the goods so understood, there was a specific condition to be followed by the importer vide condition No. 5 mentioned in the Notification. This was a condition relating to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
