Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 672 - CESTAT CHENNAI100% EOU - Concessional rate of duty - sl. No. 80(A) of N/N. 21/2002-Cus. dated 1.3.2002 - clearance of goods Danazol in DTA - denial of benefit hat the respondents have not followed the condition covered under Entry No.80(B) of Notification and that the drug “Danazol” bulk drug would fall under 80(b). The bulk drug imported by the respondent is not eligible for concessional duty as Sl. No. 80(A) refers to “Drug”. Held that:- The issue whether assessee is eligible for the benefit of Notification and whether the condition attached to S. No. 80(B) is only procedural one was considered by the Tribunal in various decisions and held in favor of the assessee - In the case of CIPLA Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai [2007 (8) TMI 131 - CESTAT, CHENNAI], it was held that admittedly, the ‘bulk drugs’ imported by the appellants were specifically mentioned in List 3 appended to Sl. No. 80(A) of Customs Notification No. 21/02 and are liable to be considered as ‘drugs’ mentioned at 80(A). It is beyond doubt that ‘bulk drugs’ are also ‘drugs’. They are so defined under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995 also. Benefit of notification allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|