9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 792X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for undoing the same. However, as it appears, the payment of the duty was not made in cash, whereas the rebate is payable in cash. The payment was made by using the Cenvat credit built up by the petitioner; which becomes relevant and whether there may have been some mischief afoot, cannot be answered merely on the basis of the adjudication conducted in course of the proceedings under Rule 18 of the said Rules of 2002. It appears that both the appellate and the revisional authorities have taken a view possible on the set of facts. In exercise of the limited superintendence under judicial review at this level, the Court will not supplant its view for that of the administrative authority that is challenged in this jurisdiction. As long as the decision-making exercise is found to be reasonable and fair and the opinion expressed appears to be plausible, the Court will refrain from interfering with the order. In the present case, the view taken by the appellate and the revisional authorities appear to be eminently justified on the basis of notification no. 4/2006 and there is no occasion for the petitioner to feel aggrieved thereby. - WP 6516 (W) of 2016 - - - Dated:- 12-4-2016 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cription of excisable goods Rate Condition No. 47. 28, 29, 30 or 38 The following goods, namely: (A) Drugs or medicines including their salts and esters and diagnostic test kits, specified in List 3 or List 4 appended to the notification of the Government of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 21/2002- Customs, dated the 1st March, 2002, (G.S.R. 118(E), dated the 1st March, 2002) (B) Bulk drugs used in the manufacture of the drugs or medicines at (A) above Nil Nil 2 The petitioner contends that since the petitioner had a licence to manufacture bulk drugs and the petitioner only deals in bulk drugs, the goods exported by the petitioner were covered under the description of clause (B) pertaining to the relevant entry in the table. The petitioner says that since there was a condition attached to the exemption of duty in such case, the petitioner could not have allowed the goods to be removed from the petitioner s manufacturing facility without the payment of duty thereon. The petitioner claims that since the duty could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wo limbs that Rule 18 of the said Rules straddles are the rebate on the duty that the exporter may have paid and the rebate on account of the duty that the exporter paid in purchasing the raw material going into the making of the finished product. The petitioner has also referred to a judgment reported at 2015 (324) ELT 686 where the Supreme Court considered the effect of the misleading or between the two limbs of Rule 18 of the said Rules. The opinion of the Supreme Court was that if an exporter was entitled to any rebate under both limbs, the rule did not mandate that the claim of rebate had to be confined to one of the two limbs only. In other words, the word or , in the context, was read as and . However, the judgment is not relevant in the present milieu as it did not cover an export transaction in respect whereof duty was unconditionally exempted. The petitioner has finally relied on a judgment reported at 2010 (260) ELT 3 where, again, a domestic transaction was involved and not an export transaction. There is an element of latitude that may be allowed to the petitioner if the petitioner can demonstrate that the goods exported by the petitioner were covered by c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the second schedule to the said Act of 1940 and which go into the manufacture of drugs or medicines covered by clause (A) of the description of goods in the relevant entry. It is apposite, in the context, to notice the essence of the revisional authority s order at paragraph 10 thereof: 10. From a plain reading of the above provisions, it is seen that a bulk drug can be used as such or as an ingredient in any formulation. Any bulk drug which features in List 3 or List 4 appended to Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 17.03.2002 will be exempted unconditionally. However, any other bulk drug if used further in manufacture of any drugs or medicines listed in List 3 or List 4 is exempted only subject to fulfillment of prescribed condition. There is no doubt that the drugs that the petitioner exported in huge quantities were drugs which were specified in Lists 3 and 4 of the relevant notification. In such circumstances, there was no question of the petitioner being under any doubt as to whether the petitioner could claim exemption therefor or any duty had to be paid in such regard. Section 5A(1A) of the Act provides as follows: 5A. Power to grant exemption from dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
