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 goods admittedly classifiable as drugs were entitled to exemption under Notification No. 55/75-C.E. without any additional condition of proof that they were marketed or actually used as drugs.
Analysis: The goods were found to be pharmacopoeial grade and non-proprietary, and therefore drugs. The exemption notification was held to contain no requirement that such drugs must be shown to have been marketed as drugs or that the importer must establish actual end-use. The condition relating to end-use was treated as relevant only in the case of drug intermediates, which may also serve as chemicals in allied industries, and not for goods already established as drugs. The additional condition imposed in the appellate order was therefore beyond the scope of the notification.
Conclusion: The goods were covered by Notification No. 55/75-C.E., and no end-use or marketing condition could be imposed for denial of the exemption; the relief was thus in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The assessee was held entitled to consequential refund relief, and the departmental appeals failed.
Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods are found to be drugs, exemption under the relevant notification cannot be denied by adding a condition of actual marketing or end-use unless the notification itself expressly requires it.