9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Assessment of additional duty on imported selenium dioxide. 2. Claim for refund based on Central Excise Exemption Notification No. 55/75. 3. Determination of whether selenium dioxide qualifies as a drug intermediate. 4. Applicability of duty exemption on selenium dioxide. Analysis: 1. The case involved the assessment of additional duty of customs on two consignments of selenium dioxide imported by M/s. Fairdeal Corporation Private Ltd. at the Port of Bombay. The Customs authorities levied duty corresponding to the excise duty under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The appellants filed for a refund, claiming that selenium dioxide was a drug intermediate covered by Central Excise Exemption Notification No. 55/75. The Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector of Customs rejected the claims, leading to the appeals before the Tribunal. 2. The appellants initially filed a single revision application, which was transferred to the Tribunal for disposal as an appeal. Subsequently, a supplementary appeal was filed. The Tribunal decided to dispose of both appeals together due to common questions of fact and law involved. 3. The main contention of the appellants was that selenium dioxide was used in the manufacture of salbutamol sulphate, a drug, and therefore qualified as a drug intermediate. They provided evidence such as a license for drug manufacture and a certificate from the Food and Drug Administration. The Tribunal considered previous orders and the actual use of selenium dioxide in the manufacturing process. 4. The Tribunal analyzed the nature of a drug intermediate, referencing previous cases and chemical definitions. It was noted that selenium dioxide acted as an oxidizing agent in the manufacture of the drug but was not a precursor to the final product. The Tribunal held that selenium dioxide, while aiding chemical reactions, did not qualify as a drug intermediate eligible for duty exemption under the Central Excise Notification. The Tribunal also addressed citations provided by the appellants, clarifying their relevance to the case. 5. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeals, emphasizing that selenium dioxide, despite its use in the manufacturing process, did not meet the criteria to be considered a drug intermediate for duty exemption purposes. The decision was based on the understanding that a substance must be a precursor to the final drug to qualify as an intermediate. The Tribunal's ruling was consistent with previous orders and established principles regarding drug intermediates. Judgment Summary: The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT New Delhi, comprising Members Sankaran, Syiem, and Jain, dismissed the appeals by M/s. Fairdeal Corporation Private Ltd. regarding the assessment of additional duty on imported selenium dioxide. The Tribunal held that selenium dioxide did not qualify as a drug intermediate for duty exemption under Central Excise Notification No. 55/75, based on the substance's role as an oxidizing agent in the manufacturing process of salbutamol sulphate. The decision was in line with established principles and previous orders, rejecting the appellants' claims for a refund.
|
