TMI Blog2019 (12) TMI 735X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... question is a pharmaceutical product, we also looked into the chapter notes to Chapter 30 of Central Excise Tariff under which these products fall. Chapter Note 6 clarifies that while dealing the pharmaceutical products, re-labelling or re-labelling of the containers intended for consumers or repacking sought from bulk packs to retail boxes or for adopting of any other treatment to render the product marketable to the consumer, shall amount to manufacture . Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as well as Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 30 of Central Excise Tariff make it abundantly clear that repacking of pharmaceuticals amounts to manufacture. Any activity which gets squarely covered under the definition of manufacture cannot be ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate authority denied the benefit of Notification No. 52/2003-Cus, dated 31.03.2003 to the appellant which is assailed in this appeal. This exemption notification exempts from Customs duty goods which are reimported within three years of their export for repair or reconditioning . 2. The appellants are a 100% EOU manufacturing bulk drugs and formulations and had filed bill of entry No. 2310231, dt. 08.11.2010 claiming exemption from customs duties under notification No. 52/2003-Cus, dt. 31.03.2003. The imported goods were sent by their overseas buyer Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc vide invoice No. CUS-E099, dated 31.04.2010 for repacking. The department observed that as per the aforesaid notification, goods are exempted when re- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r reconditioning, hence appellant was not entitled for the exemption benefit out of the said notification. Ld. D.R. has laid the emphasis on the definition/dictionary meaning Repair and reconditioning to impress upon that the both these activities are completely different from repacking. 6. After examining the rival contentions of both the parties and perusal of the records, we are of the opinion that key question is whether the activity of repacking of pharmaceuticals can be called as repair or reconditioning. The notification No. 52/2003 nowhere defined the word repair or reconditioning . Hence, we have to rely upon the Dictionary meaning of these words. The term repair are given the following meanings in standard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... word repair . To ascertain what amounts to manufacture under the Central Excise Act 1944, we refer to the definitions in Section 2 of the Act. Clause f , sub clause (iii) of this section specifically says that packing or reconditioning of any goods or even re-labelling of containers amounts to manufacture in respect of goods covered in Third Schedule to Central Excise Tariff Act. Pharmaceutical products are covered at Sl.No. 31 of the Third Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act. Since the product in question is a pharmaceutical product, we also looked into the chapter notes to Chapter 30 of Central Excise Tariff under which these products fall. Chapter Note 6 clarifies that while dealing the pharmaceutical products, re-labelling or r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n this circular which extends the benefit of the exemption notification No. 52/2003 for re-importation of goods when those are re-imported within 3 years of exportation for an activity which amounts to manufacture. Further, we observe that the exemption notification being an exemption to the general rule, must be construed strictly and benefit of doubt if any must be given in favour of the Revenue and against the claimant, as held by Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Dilip Kumar (in Civil Appeal no. 3327/2007). 10. In view of the above, we find that the appellant is not entitled to the benefit of exemption notification No.52/2003-Cus. Dated 31.03.2003. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
