TMI Blog2007 (6) TMI 354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n is required to be made at the original stage - the impugned goods in respect of both the appellants being specified in List 2 to the relevant notifications, are entitled to exemption from basic and additional customs duty under serial No. 43(A) under Notification 11/97 and under similar provisions in the successor notifications during the relevant time - appeal allowed. - E/1665/2000 & C/1156/2001 - A/461 & 462/2007-WZB/C-I/(EB) - Dated:- 20-6-2007 - Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Shri T. Anjaneyulu,JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri V. Sridharan and R.G. Sheth, Advocates, for the Appellant. S/Shri K.M. Mondal, Consultant and Uma Shankar, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per : Chittaranjan Satapathy, Member (T)]. Heard both side ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es Nil Nil 7 4. The appellants claim exemption under serial No. 43(B) for bulk drugs used in the manufacture of life saving drugs or medicine at serial No. 43(A). The life saving drugs under serial No. 43(A) were specified in List 2. The said List 2 specifies both the impugned drugs imported by the appellants. However, while it also specifies the end-product manufactured by Pfizer, the end-product manufactured by Burroughs is not specified therein. 5. Both sides agree that for availing the benefit under serial No. 43(B), the procedure prescribed under the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996, is to be followed in view of the conditions specified in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ude bulk drugs . He also submits that the coverage under serial No. 43(A) includes formulations as well as bulk drugs, since Chapters 28, 29, 30 and 38 have been listed in the relevant exemption notification. 9. Shri R.G. Sheth, learned Advocate appearing for Pfizer, also makes a similar claim that the appellants are entitled to a more beneficial exemption, while fairly stating that initially they had not claimed the exemption under serial No. 43(A) but were prompted to claim the same in view of the Tribunal s earlier order dated 8-1-2001 in the case of Burroughs Wellcome (I) Ltd. 10. Shri K.M. Mondal, learned Consultant appearing for the department in the case of Burroughs, states that the appellants had all along claimed the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s duty is chargeable. As such, the benefit under serial No. 43(B) is restricted to exemption from basic customs duty as well as there is a procedural requirement. On the other hand, exemption under serial No. 43(A) does not require any procedure to be followed apart from granting exemption both from basic customs duty and additional customs duty. Since serial No. 43(A) is more beneficial, we are of the view that the appellants can not be precluded from claiming the same at a later stage, even if they had not claimed the same at the initial stage as in the case of Burroughs. We have already noted that in the case of Pfizer, the claim was made even at the original stage. The case law in Share Medical (cited supra) clearly allows an appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
