9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (11) TMI 520X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of testing to their laboratories are liable for duty. 2. The appellant s contention is that testing was carried out in terms of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The said test was mandatory and the drugs cannot be marketed unless it satisfies the conditions stipulated in the Drugs Control Regulations. The appellants also relied on a large number of judgments. However, their plea was not accepted and the Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded on the basis of the Tribunal ruling rendered in the case of M/s. Vera Laboratories Limited by Final Order No. 1485/2003, dated 18-11-2003 wherein it has been held that when samples are removed for testing purpose, they are liable for duty. 3. The learned Consultant submits that in their own case, this Benc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ] (iii) Exon Laboratories Pvt Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai [2006 (205) E.L.T. 952 (Tri. - Mumbai)] (iv) Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CCE C, Aurangabad [2003 (162) E.L.T. 612 (Tri. - Mumbai)] (v) Bayer Diagnostics India Ltd. v. CCE C, Vadodara [2001 (133) E.L.T. 140 (Tri. - Mumbai)] (vi) Waxpol Industries Ltd. v. CCE., Jamshedpur [2000 (126) E.L.T. 1001 (Tribunal)] Following ratio of the above cited decisions, I allow the appeals with consequential relief. 6. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal No. 41/2006, dated 28-1-2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs Central Excise (Appeals), Visakhapatnam. The Respondents are manufacturers of Bulk Drugs and Drug Intermediates which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing that duty should be collected on samples before their removal for test purposes unless otherwise exempted by any notification; (ii) to follow the decision of CESTAT of the jurisdictional Bench on the same issue; (iii) to differentiate the present case from the case laws, which are not applicable to the present case, but on relying them; and (iv) to note that those samples were drawn after attaining RG1 stage, but not prior to RG1 stage. 7. The learned JDR reiterated the Grounds of Appeal of the Revenue. 8. Shri Seshagiri Rao, learned Consultant said that the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly followed the decision of the Tribunal and dropped the proceedings. Hence the Revenue s appeal, according to him, has no merits. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
