9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (6) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agya Devi, SDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. - The appellants are manufacturers of medicaments. During the period of dispute [January-June 1998 for the first appeal and January to December 1997 for the second], they had availed MODVAT credit on inputs which were used in the manufacture of medicaments, which were cleared for export without payment of duty. The departme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gainst the orders of the appellate Commissioner. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned SDR for the Revenue. It is submitted by the counsel that the goods cleared for export were admittedly medicaments falling under Heading 30.03 of the CETA Schedule, that these satisfied the requisite ingredients for classification as "P or P medicaments" under SH 3003.10 and tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... longer tenable. It is argued that the said goods could only be classified under the said entry and were not to be treated as 'exempted goods' for the purpose of denial of the benefit of Rule 57C of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. In this connection, the learned counsel has relied on Final Order Nos. 418 & 419/2008 dated 29-4-2008 passed this Bench in Appeal Nos. E/1258 & 1259/1999, wherein one of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trademark in question stands registered in the name of the appellants with effect from 2-4-1996. 3. The period of dispute involved in this case is after 2-4-1996 obviously, the medicaments cleared from the appellant's factory for export without payment of duty, were so cleared under a registered trademark and therefore it can hardly be gainsaid that the goods merited classification under SH 3003 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
