9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (5) TMI 248X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Registry to the appellants and their Advocates. In reply, a letter dated 4-5-1984 was received from M/s Kantawala Co., Advocates Solicitors, Bombay, stating that, in view of certain matters fixed for hearing before the Bombay Bench, Dr. Nitin Kantawala would not be in a position to attend the hearing before this Special Bench at New Delhi on the same date. In the circumstances, it was requested that the hearing might be adjourned to a suitable date in the month of June, 1984. On the day of hearing, however, Shri Ashok Gupta, Advocate, appeared in the Court and submitted that 4 appeals of the same appellants (the present appeals) were coming up for hearing on 29-5-1984 and so, he requested, that that case be heard along with the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 342/1343/80R 1411/82R, the Appellate Collector of Customs, Bombay, disposed of 4 appeals, one of which was from M/s Bombay Paxwell Pvt. Ltd. and 3 from M/s Gufic Pvt. Ltd. (the present appellant). Therefore, we are concerned in the present proceedings with only 3 appeals against Order-in-Appeal No. S. 49-1342/1343/80R and 1411/82R. However, at the instance of the Registry M/s Gufic Private Ltd. filed 4 sets of appeal papers whereas it was necessary for them to have filed only 3 sets of appeal papers. The appeal filed against Order No. S. 49-1340/80R, not being competent, may be returned by the Registry to M/s Gufic Private Ltd., along with the fees (if any) deposited with regard to this appeal. 5. The dispute in the 3 appeals concerns ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ro Benzoic Acid as intermediate. 7. The Departmental Representative supported the impugned order for the reasons stated therein. 8. We have considered the submissions before us. We had occasion to construe Notification No. 55/75 which, among other things, exempts from excise duty all drugs, medicines, pharmaceuticals and drugs intermediate not elsewhere specified. We have, in our Order Nos. C-550 to 552/1983 dated 30th November, 1983 in Appeal Nos. CD(SB)(T) A. No. 350/80-C, 689/80-C and 690/80-C in the case of M/s Fairdeal Corporation (Pvt) Ltd., Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, 1984 (16) E.L.T. 168 (Tribunal) held that glyoxal, the chemical in that case, which found use in the manufacture of drugs should be extended the benef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
