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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether imported intravenous amino acids admixed with glucose and electrolytes were eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 20/99-Cus. and Notification No. 16/2000-Cus. as life-saving drugs/medicines specified in List 2.
Analysis: The goods were admittedly imported for intravenous use and the functional ingredient was intravenous amino acids, which were covered by the relevant entries in List 2. The presence of glucose and electrolytes was held not to take the goods of the notifications, as the materials showed that such admixture supported the therapeutic use of the amino acids. A prior Tribunal decision extending similar benefit where glucose or sorbitol was present was followed, and the contrary Board circular was held not to prevail over that judicial view.
Conclusion: The imported goods were entitled to the notification benefit, and the denial of exemption was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption entry covers a functional product by name, the mere presence of supportive admixtures does not disqualify the goods unless the notification expressly uses restrictive words, and a contrary departmental circular cannot override a binding judicial interpretation.