Refund claim allowed for Gemcitabine and Doxorubicin Hydrochlorides under Notification 4/2006-CE exemption covering pharmaceutical hydrochlorides

CESTAT Chandigarh allowed the appeal regarding refund claim rejection for Gemcitabine Hydrochloride and Doxorubicin Hydrochloride. The tribunal held that Notification No. 4/2006-CE exemption extends to hydrochlorides of specified drugs under List 3 and 4 of Notification 21/2002-Cus, as pharmaceutical substances are prepared as hydrochlorides for quick absorption. Denial would render the notification redundant and create discrimination against the appellant compared to other manufacturers. The appellant successfully demonstrated through balance sheet evidence that duty was not passed to customers, satisfying unjust enrichment principles by recording duty as receivable under current assets rather than including in injection costs.

---

---

The appeal challenges the order dated 06.12.2012 by the Commissioner (Appeals), which upheld the rejection of a refund claim by the adjudicating authority. The appellant, a manufacturer of PP medicaments, sought a refund of Rs. 91,78,787/- under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act for duty paid on inputs used in manufacturing life-saving drugs. The claim was based on the exemption provided under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002. The adjudicating authority rejected the claim, stating that the inputs, Gemcitabine Hydrochloride and Doxorubicin Hydrochloride, were not specified in the exemption lists and that the appellant failed the test of unjust enrichment.

The core legal issues considered were:

• Whether the exemption under Notification No. 04/2006-CE dated 1/3/2006 applies to hydrochlorides of drugs specified in Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.
• Whether the appellant passed the test of unjust enrichment.

The legal framework involved the interpretation of exemptions under Notifications No. 21/2002-Cus and No. 04/2006-CE. The appellant argued that the exemption should extend to hydrochlorides, as they are salts of the specified drugs. This argument was supported by a prior favorable decision in the appellant's own case and various judicial precedents. The appellant also contended that the duty was not passed on to customers, as evidenced by their accounting records and Chartered Accountant certifications.

The Court's interpretation focused on the legislative intent behind the notifications. It was noted that hydrochlorides are salts resulting from the reaction of hydrochloric acid with an organic base, and their inclusion in the exemption aligns with the legislative purpose. The Court also emphasized the principle that the Department cannot take contradictory positions in similar proceedings for the same assessee.

Regarding unjust enrichment, the Court found that the appellant had sufficiently demonstrated that the duty was not passed on to customers. The evidence included balance sheets showing the duty as a "Receivable" under Current Assets and unchanged MRPs despite duty payments. The Court noted that the Department failed to provide contrary evidence.

Significant holdings included:

• The exemption under Notification No. 04/2006-CE extends to hydrochlorides of specified drugs, consistent with legislative intent.
• The appellant successfully demonstrated that the duty was not passed on to customers, satisfying the test of unjust enrichment.
• The Department's failure to provide evidence against the appellant's claims further supported the decision to allow the refund.

The Court concluded that the impugned order was not sustainable in law, set it aside, and allowed the appeal with consequential relief as per law.

---