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: (i) Whether bulk drugs specifically mentioned in List 3 to Sl. No. 80(A) of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. are classifiable as "drugs" for the purpose of exemption from basic customs duty and the corresponding CVD exemption under Notification No. 4/2006-CE; (ii) Whether the assessee's appeal against the assessment for Bill of Entry No. 184992 dated 3-7-2006 was time-barred and whether the delay was liable to be condoned.
Issue (i): Whether bulk drugs specifically mentioned in List 3 to Sl. No. 80(A) of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. are classifiable as "drugs" for the purpose of exemption from basic customs duty and the corresponding CVD exemption under Notification No. 4/2006-CE.
Analysis: The goods imported were admittedly bulk drugs and were also specifically named in List 3 attached to Sl. No. 80(A). The entries in the customs and excise notifications distinguished between bulk drugs in Part B and drugs/medicines in Part A, but the imported goods, by reason of their specific listing, fell within the description of "drugs specified in List 3" under Sl. No. 80(A). The same reasoning applied to Sl. No. 47(A) of Notification No. 4/2006-CE. The principle that where two entries are available, the assessee may claim the more beneficial entry supported this construction, and the exemption notification was to be construed strictly on its language while still giving effect to the specific description used.
Conclusion: The imported bulk drugs were entitled to the benefit of Sl. No. 80(A) of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. for BCD and Sl. No. 47(A) of Notification No. 4/2006-CE for CVD; the denial of exemption was unsustainable and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the assessee's appeal against the assessment for Bill of Entry No. 184992 dated 3-7-2006 was time-barred and whether the delay was liable to be condoned.
Analysis: The appeal period was to be reckoned from the date on which the assessed Bill of Entry was supplied to the assessee, not merely from the assessment date. On the facts, the order was supplied on 2-8-2006 and the appeal was filed on 9-10-2006. In those circumstances, the delay was only of a few days within the condonable range and was liable to be condoned.
Conclusion: The appeal was not to be treated as time-barred, the delay was condoned, and this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The assessment orders were set aside and the assessee succeeded on both the exemption question and the limitation question.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an exemption notification specifically lists goods in the relevant entry, the assessee may claim the more beneficial entry even if the goods are also described as a broader category elsewhere in the notification, and limitation for appeal runs from supply of the appealable order where the delay is to be counted from receipt of the assessment order.
TaxTMI 
