1990 (12) TMI 252 - AT - Customs

Tribunal allows appeal on PHOLCODINE B.P. import duty exemption & name change, criticizes Collector (Appeals)

ROHONE POULENC (INDIA) LTD. Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi allowed the appellants' appeal regarding the importation of the narcotic drug 'PHOLCODINE B.P.' The Tribunal ... Pholcodine B.P. Issues:- Change of name of the appellants in the cause title- Refund of additional duty of customs on imported narcotic drug 'PHOLCODINE B.P.'- Applicability of Central Excise Exemption Notifications- Classification of goods under Item 14E of the First Schedule to the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944- Chargeability of excise duty under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955- Rejection of claims by customs authorities and Collector (Appeals)- Consideration of previous Tribunal's order in a similar case- Dismissal of appeals by Collector (Appeals) based on failure to raise excisability issue earlierAnalysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi addressed multiple issues related to the importation of the narcotic drug 'PHOLCODINE B.P.' by the appellants. Initially, the Tribunal allowed the application for changing the name of the appellants in the cause title. The appellants had imported the drug and claimed a refund of additional duty of customs based on exemptions under Central Excise Notification No. 234/82 and 234/86, arguing that the drug was a bulk drug exempt from additional duty. The customs authorities had levied the duty based on the classification under Item 14E of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, and the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955.The Collector (Appeals) rejected the claims, stating that exemption notifications under the Central Excises & Salt Act could not apply to customs duty exemptions and that a certificate from Central Excise authorities was required to prove non-availment of MODVAT benefits. However, the Collector (Appeals) failed to address the core issue of excisability raised by the appellants. The Tribunal reviewed a previous order in a similar case and concluded that the imported drug, being a narcotic and a preparation, was not liable for additional duty of customs. The Tribunal criticized the Collector (Appeals) for not considering the merits of the case and for passing the responsibility upwards.Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals, providing consequential relief to the appellants. The judgment emphasized the importance of addressing issues raised by parties and applying legal principles correctly, highlighting the duty of appellate authorities to decide cases on their merits.