9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Whether Gamma Picoline imported by the appellants for the manufacture of Isonicotinic Acid qualifies for exemption from additional duty as a drug intermediate under Central Excise Notification No. 55/75. Analysis: The appeal was transferred to the Appellate Tribunal for disposal as an appeal under Section 131-B of the Customs Act, 1962. The main contention was whether Gamma Picoline used in the manufacture of Isonicotinic Acid qualifies as a drug intermediate for duty exemption. The appellants argued that Gamma Picoline was indeed a drug intermediate, supported by a certificate from the Drug Controller and a parliamentary announcement. The respondent contended that while Isonicotinic Acid could be considered a drug intermediate, the same did not apply to Gamma Picoline. The Tribunal considered the submissions and examined the uses of Gamma Picoline as per the Condensed Chemical Dictionary. It was noted that Gamma Picoline had various applications, including as a solvent and in pharmaceutical synthesis. Although Gamma Picoline was not the immediate precursor of the anti-T.B. drug Isoniazid, it was argued that it still qualified as a drug intermediate. The Tribunal referred to a previous order to highlight the ambiguity of the term "drug intermediate" and emphasized that the predominant use of a chemical as a drug intermediate was not crucial for duty exemption. Based on the evidence and authorities' understanding, the Tribunal concluded that Gamma Picoline qualified as a drug intermediate under the notification. During the hearing, the appellants offered to provide evidence that the Isonicotinic Acid manufactured by them was used in the production of INH by another company. Considering the arguments and evidence presented, the Tribunal held that the imported goods were eligible for duty concession as a drug intermediate. The Customs authorities were directed to ensure the use of Isonicotinic Acid in the manufacture of INH within four months.
|
