TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal grants concessional duty rate for imported Micronized Progesterone BP under List 3</h1> <h3>Biocon Ltd. Versus CC (Port Export), Chennai</h3> Biocon Ltd. Versus CC (Port Export), Chennai - TMI Issues:1. Interpretation of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus regarding concessional rate of duty for imported bulk drug Micronized Progesterone BP.2. Applicability of Sl.No. 80 (A) or 80 (B) of the said notification.3. Compliance with the procedure set out under 1996 Rules for concessional rate of duty.Analysis:1. The appeal addressed the dispute arising from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Chennai concerning the concessional rate of duty claimed by the appellant for importing Micronized Progesterone BP under Sl.No. 80 (A) of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002. The Revenue argued that the product should be assessed under Sl.No. 80 (B) due to non-compliance with the procedure set out under 1996 Rules, leading to the disallowance of the concessional rate of duty.2. The appellant's counsel contended that the imported product, Micronized Progesterone BP, is listed under Sl.No. 58 of List 3 of the notification, making their claim for the concession clear and unambiguous. The counsel cited previous Tribunal decisions, including CIPLA Ltd. Vs. CC, Chennai 2007 (218) ELT 547 (Tri.-Chen.), to support their argument.3. The Revenue's representative opposed the appeal, emphasizing that the imported goods were in bulk form and not intended for retail sale. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal focused on the interpretation of entries under Sl.No. 80 of the notification, distinguishing between goods specified in List 3 (80 (A)) and bulk drugs used in manufacturing those goods (80 (B)).4. The Tribunal observed that the imported product, Micronized Progesterone BP, fell under List 3 and was specifically covered under 80 (A) of the notification. Referring to the CIPLA Ltd. case, the Tribunal emphasized that bulk drugs are also considered drugs and are eligible for the concessional rate of duty under 80 (A) if listed in List 3. Relying on the precedent, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order disallowing the concessional rate of duty was unsustainable, setting it aside and allowing the appeal.In conclusion, the judgment clarified the proper interpretation of the notification regarding concessional duty rates for imported bulk drugs, emphasizing the importance of specific listings and the applicability of relevant provisions to determine eligibility for such benefits.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
