TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. dated 01-03-2006 in respect of the goods Nevirapine and Stavudine, which were specifically listed in Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 01-03-2002, and whether such goods could be treated as drugs or bulk drugs for the purpose of the exemption.
Analysis: The items manufactured by the appellants were found to fall under Sl. Nos. 117 and 118 of List 3 appended to Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. dated 01-03-2002. In view of this specific entry, the goods were held to be covered by the exemption structure of Notification No. 4/2006-C.E. dated 01-03-2006. The reasoning also noted that the appellants had intimated the clearances in ER-1 returns, that the recipient used the goods in the manufacture of formulations, and that the issue was covered by the cited precedents. The term "drug" was treated as encompassing bulk drugs in the relevant statutory and notification framework.
Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to the exemption and the departmental denial of the notification benefit was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, and the impugned orders denying the exemption were set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are specifically enumerated in the relevant list appended to an exemption notification, they cannot be denied the notification benefit merely by characterising them differently, and a specific entry prevails for exemption purposes.
TaxTMI 
