9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 629X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... specific entry in the above stated Sl. No. of List 3 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002. In view of this entry, the assessees are eligible for the benefit of the Notification. The items are bulk drugs and they are required to be granted the benefit of Notification. The issue is also covered in the case of M/s. Burroughs Wellcome (I) Ltd. v. CCE [ 2007 (6) TMI 354 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] and Cipla Ltd. v. CC [ 2007 (8) TMI 131 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] - it is found that the clearance made by them availing the Notification had been intimated to the Department in form ER-1 filed by the appellants from time to time. The appellants had cleared the items to Cipla Ltd. by availing nil rate of duty in terms of the Notification No. 4/2006-C.E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law and hence, they are taken up together for disposal as per law. 2. The revenue has proceeded against both the appellants on the ground that they are not eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006. 3. The appellants are manufactures of drugs which they claimed to be covered under Category (A) to Sl. No. 47 of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006. The description of drugs or medicines is stipulated in List 3 or List 4 appended to the said notification. The Department has taken a view that the item mentioned in List 3 or List 4 is used in the manufacture of bulk drugs and that item is covered only under Sl. No. 47B. It is the Department s view that since the item comes under Sl. No. 47(B), the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fic category of medicines and bulk drugs in Sl. No. 47(A) and 47(B). It was submitted that what was found in Sl. No. 47(B) as bulk drugs cannot be read out of category of Sl. No. 47(A). Therefore, they are all drugs and bulk drugs and the appellants are required to follow the terms of the Notification. Since, they have not followed certain conditions, therefore, they are not entitled for the benefit as held by the Commissioner (Appeals). 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. We notice that the items manufactured by the assessee specifically fall under Sl. No. 117/118 of List 3 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002. Although, the appellants cleared the items to be drugs, there is specific entry in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecified nil rate of duty for bulk drugs used in the manufacture of life saving drugs or medicines at Clause (A) of Sl. No. 43. However, for availing the benefit under Sl. No. 43(B), the procedure prescribed under the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996 is to be followed. This has been followed and there is no denial of the same. In view of this position, the ratio of the judgment cited supra would also apply to the facts of this case, as the facts were similar and the benefit of the Notification was given. 5.2 It is further seen that Nevirapine is specifically mentioned in List-3 of the Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., hence, it is a drug covered under Sl. No. 47(A) of Notifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
