9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st Sl.No.80(A), there is no condition attached - similar issue decided in the case of COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., HYDERABAD Versus HETERO DRUGS LTD. [2009 (7) TMI 1139 - CESTAT BANGALORE], where it was held that there is no definition of bulk drugs in the Notification involved. As per the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995, drugs also include bulk drugs. The item Lopinavir figures in List 3 of N/N. 21/2002-Cus and exemption is allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C/148/2007 - Final Order No. 42141 / 2017 - Dated:- 18-9-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S. Member ( Judicial ) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical ) Shri S.Krishnanandh, Advocate For the Appellant Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he following cases : (a) CIPLA Ltd. Vs. CC Chennai 2007 (218) ELT 547 (Tri.-Chennai) (b) CCE Hyderabad Vs. Hetero Drugs Ltd. 2010 (262) ELT 490 (Tri.-Bang.) (c) DR. Reddys Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CCE Hyderabad 2010 (251) ELT 447 (Tri.-Bang) 3. Against this, Ld. A.R Shri K.V. Veerabhadra Reddy, submitted that appellant has declared the goods as bulk drugs and therefore has violated the condition attached to Sl.No.80(B) of the notification. 4. Heard both sides. It is not disputed that Zidovudine is specifically listed in List 3 against Sl.No.80(A) of the said notification. Against Sl.No.80(A), there is no condition attached. According to appellants, the condition attached to Sl.No.80(B) is only a procedural one and since th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Drugs Ltd. (supra) on the aforesaid issue, observed as under : 4. In the appeal before the Tribunal, the appellant revenue has taken the following grounds. It is submitted that Lopinavir is bulk drug and cannot be treated as drug or medicines . The expression drug at Sl. No. 47(A) referred to finished pharmaceutical products or formulations whereas bulk drugs at Sl. No. 47(B) referred to bulk drugs which were used in the manufacture of drugs or medicines. The assessee had classified the item under Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff which covered organic chemicals; and drugs were classifiable under Chapter 30 of the tariff. It is submitted that the impugned goods were bulk drugs as per the definition of the term in the notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that the impugned clearances of Lopinavir are entitled to exemption extended to goods at against Sl. No. 47(A). In terms of the Notification such clearances are entitled to exemption unconditionally. 6. In a recent decision in the case of M/s.Biocon Ltd. Vs CC Chennai by Final Order No.42065/2017 dt. 13.09.2017, the Tribunal has taken a similar view. Following the above said decisions, we hold that the condition attached to Sl.No.80(B) of Notification No.21/2002-Cus. dt. 1.3.2002 being a procedural one, non-compliance cannot be a ground for denying the benefit especially because the entry drug in Sl.No.80 (A) does not have any conditions attached to it. From the above discussions, we set aside the impugned order. The appeal is al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
