TMI Blog2009 (3) TMI 810X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sue involved also being same, they are being disposed off by a common order. 2. The facts in brief are that the appellant-company is manufacturer of bulk drugs falling under Chapter 29 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They cleared the bulk drugs viz., Etavirenz, Nelfinavir mesylate, Didanosine, Indinavir, Nevirapine and Stavudine. During the relevant period, the appellant-company cleared the goods without payment of duty by claiming exemption under Sl. No. 47A of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006. The investigating authorities on an investigation came to the conclusion that the appellant-company could not have claimed the benefit of Sl. No. 47A of the Notification and should have claimed the benefit of Sl. No. 47B of the Not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld submit that the products manufactured by them are specified in List-3 or List-4 of the Notification of the Government of India No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 1-3-2002. It is his submission that the issue in this case is now squarely decided by this bench in the case of M/s. Astrix Laboratories Ltd. Anr: v. CCE C, Hyderabad-I in Final Order No. 979 980/2008 [2009 (233) E.L.T. 372 (Tri.)]. He would also draw our attention to the technical literature produced by him in this regard. 4. The learned Joint CDR on the other hand would argue that the Entry at Sl. No. 47A talks about drugs or medicine including salts and esters and diagnostic test kits. It is her submission that the bulk drugs cleared by the appellant are not drugs or medicines an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification of the Government of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 21/2002-Customs, Nil - dated the 1st March 2002, (G.S.R. 118 (E), dated the 1st March, 2002) (B) Bulk drugs used in the manufacture of the Nil drugs or medicines at (A) above. Nil 5.1 The undisputed facts are that the products which are cleared by the appellant as bulk drugs do find mention in List-3 of Notification No. 21/2002-Customs dated 1-3-2002 at Entry No. 113-118. The contention of the learned Joint CDR that the Sl. No. 47B will be only applicable to the appellant-company and not Sl. No. 47A seems to be misplaced. First and foremost reasoning is that Entry No. 47 very clearly indic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arance made by them availing the Notification had been intimated to the department in form ER-I filed by the appellants from time to time. The appellants had cleared the items to Cipla Ltd. by availing nil rate of duty in terms of the Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006. Cipla had used Stavudine and Nevirapine in the manufacture of medicines and had accounted for the quantity of both the items received by it from the appellants at nil rate of duty, in the records maintained by them and used the same in the manufacture of formulations/medicines specified in Sl. No. 47A of the Notification No. 4/2006-C.E., dated 1-3-2006. 5.1 In the case of M/s. Burroughs Wellcome (I) Ltd. (supra), the question was as to whether the bulk drugs Po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002. Therefore, the term drug has to be considered to include bulk drug and formulation as per Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995 and hence, both the items being bulk drugs are entitled for the benefit of the Notification. The impugned orders are not correct and legal and hence, they are set aside by allowing these appeals. 5.3 In this case before us, we find the issue is identical to the issue which was before this very bench in the case of M/s. Astrix Laboratories Ltd. (supra). We also find that in this case also the drugs which are cleared by the appellant do find mention in List No. 3 of the Customs Notification. 5.4 Accordingly, respectively following the decision of the Division Bench, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
