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>Pharma Co. Fails Certificate Requirement for Excise Duty Exemption</h1> <h3>NESTOR PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NEW DELHI</h3> NESTOR PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., NEW DELHI - 1999 (106) E.L.T. 256 (Tribunal) Issues:Interpretation of exemption Notification No. 108/95 for excise duty exemption on goods supplied to international organizations.Analysis:The case involved a stay application by a pharmaceutical company against a duty demand and penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for not producing a certificate from the United Nations or an international organization as required by Notification No. 108/95. The company argued that they had complied with the project approval and financing conditions, and the World Bank's approval letters should suffice as certificates. The Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) held that strict compliance with the certificate provision was necessary. The company cited Supreme Court judgments for a liberal interpretation post-eligibility confirmation. The respondent argued that the certificate condition was essential, citing Supreme Court judgments emphasizing strict compliance with exemption conditions.The Tribunal noted that the company failed to produce the required certificate from the United Nations or an international organization as mandated by the Notification. The World Bank's letters did not serve as a substitute for the certificate. While an amendment (Notification No. 33/98) introduced a new certificate requirement, the original Notification mandated a certificate from the United Nations or an international organization. Thus, the company's argument for exemption under Notification No. 108/95 was not upheld, requiring a pre-deposit for the appeal hearing.Considering the circumstances, the Tribunal ordered the company to pre-deposit a specified amount before the appeal hearing, with no pre-deposit required for the penalty amount. The balance of the duty and penalty amounts would remain stayed pending the appeal's disposal, with a compliance reporting date set for a future hearing.
TaxTMI 