9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame order is filed which is numbered as E/1977/2010 and submits both can be taken up together. We called for the case papers and on perusal of same find it so, as in both these appeals the same Order-in-Appeal is contested by the Revenue the appeals are taken up for disposal by a common order. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records. 4. On perusal of records, it transpires that the respondent herein are manufacturers of P or P Medicaments falling under Chapter 30; are manufacturing "Oxytetracycline Injectable Solution (Veterinary)" manufactured on Loan License basis to M/s Indian Immunologicals Limited, Hyderabad; claiming exemption from payment of duty under Sl. No. 57 of exemption Notification No. 06/2002 dated 01.03.2002; were fili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cline Injectable Solution (Veterinary)" as being derivative of "Tetracycline Hydrochloride". To come to this conclusion, the First Appellate Authority has relied incorrectly on the certificate issued by an expert Dr. Sri Badri Prasad, who was Director, Revenue Laboratories (retired), Government of India, Ministry of Finance. He would submit that the benefit of notification needs to be extended only to bulk drugs specified in the said notification. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent draws our attention to entry No. 57 and submits that the said entry contemplates for exemption formulations manufactured from bulk drugs specified in list No. 2. It is his submission that the definition of bulk drugs is not in composite in the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h of January, 2005 and submits that the clearances of the product claiming exemption was indicated though the notification number mentioned is 06/2003 which is a typographical error. 7. On careful consideration of submissions made, we find that the facts as stated herein above are undisputed. 8. On merits, we find that the appellant has a case in their favour. On perusal of entry No. 57 in notification No. 06/2002 indicates as under: 57 30 Formulations manufactured from the bulk drugs specified in List 2 Explanation.- For the purposes of this notification, the expression "formulation" means medicaments processed out of or containing one or more bulk drugs, with or without the use of any pharmaceutical aids (suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Rules, 1944, we find it was filed by the respondent on 24.07.2002 and indicates that it is effective from 23.07.2002 and notice that the product in question in these appeals are indicated as being sought to be cleared without payment of duty claiming exemption under Notification No. 06/2002 dated 01.03.2002 as indicated at Sl. No. 57. On perusal of the monthly returns submitted for the period in question we do find the respondent had indicated that they are clearing "Oxytetracycline Injectable Solution (Veterinary)" without payment of duty by claiming exemption under Notification. It is also a fact that their ER1 monthly returns indicate number of notification as 06/2003. On specific query from the Bench to the both sides, as to whether t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
