TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 286X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for manufacture of tablets which was considered as not mentioned in the said exemption notification. The Assistant Collector has passed a one line order rejecting the refund claim on the ground that despite grant of sufficient time, the importer did not produce the requisite document/information and the claim was liable to be rejected as unsubstantiated. 2. However, the Collector (Appeals) has given a detailed order. The Collector has noted that the condition of exemption notification No. 45/79-Cus. is that full exemption can be availed if the goods imported are used in the manufacture of life saving drugs and medicines specified in Notification No. 208/81. He has noted the appellants producing end-use certificate for consumption of 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reas Notification No. 45/79-Cus. exempts under Sr. No. 9 Refampicin imported as bulk drug from the payment of whole of the customs duty provided it is used in the manufacture of life saving medicines specified in the Notification No. 208/81-Cus. They have submitted that Refampicin appearing in Notification No. 201/81-Cus. includes all forms of formulations including tablets, syrups and injectables. They have further contended that Refampicin is a bulk drug and is used for manufacture of life saving drugs for treatment of Tuberculosis and leprosy and that Refampicin could be used in any form i.e. tablets, syrups, Injectables and capsules and the restrictive meaning given by the Collector that the entry has to be read only for capsules is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ered in the case of Union of India v. Suksha International and Nutan Gems and Another [1989 (39) E.L.T. 503 SC] wherein it has been held that in the interpretation of statute, the beneficial provisions are not to be read restricting the scope of beneficial provisions. 4. We have heard Shri U.S. Prakasam for the appellants and Shri S. Chakraborti, Departmental Representative for the Revenue. The Government of India issued Notification No. 321/85 dated 17-10-1985. By this Notification, it has amended Notification No. 208/81-Cus., dated 22-9-1981 in the following manner - In the Schedule annexed to the said notification, under heading A. Life Saving Drugs or medicines , for Item No. 108 and the entry relating thereto, the following item a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goes to confirm that Refampicin can be administered in the form of capsules, syrups, tablets etc. Thus Notification No. 321/85 is, in our view, in the nature of clarificatory notification. Therefore, as long as the imported material finds its place in the exemption notification, the exemption cannot be denied by giving a narrow interpretation which has been the case in the impugned order. The impugned order is not sustainable and is set aside. 6. The other ground given by the Collector that the appellants should have appealed against the order of the enforcement of bond, is also not correct application of law. The appellants have filed their claim within 6 months of the date of payment of duty. Therefore, it cannot be said that the refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
