2017 (9) TMI 1275

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... alleged that appellants are not eligible for such concession rate of duty as they have not fulfilled the conditions set out in Sl.No.80(B) of the notification . Show cause notice dt. 4.8.2004 was issued demanding the differential duty which after adjudication culminated in passing the impugned order which confirmed the duty demand along with interest and also imposed penalty. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2. Ld. Counsel for appellant submitted that Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in holding that Zidovudine imported being a bulk drug is not eligible for concessional duty as a drug falling under Sl.No.80(A) of the notification; that the procedure attached to Sl.No.80(B) is not a substantive one a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... imported by the appellants were specifically mentioned in List 3 appended to Sl. No. 80(A) of Customs Notification No. 21/02 and are liable to be considered as drugs mentioned at 80(A). It is beyond doubt that bulk drugs are also drugs . They are so defined under the Drugs (Prices Control) Order, 1995 also. The imported goods, which are specified in List 3, must fall within the coverage of drugs specified in List 3 and consequently the benefit of Sl. No. 80(A) would be admissible to them in relation to BCD. It would follow that, insofar as CVD is concerned, the benefit of Sl. No. 47(A) of the Central Excise Notification would be available to the goods. We have taken this view upon strict interpretation of the language used in the descripti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt case, the assessee had not followed the procedure prescribed in the rules. In allowing the appeal of the assessee, Commissioner (Appeals) had wrongly placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in M/s. Burroughs Wellcome (I) Ltd.(supra); the issue involved in that case was whether life saving drugs could also include bulk drugs. 5. Heard both sides. 6. We have carefully perused the case records and the submissions by both sides. The dispute involved in the subject case is whether Lopinavir , an item figuring in List 3 appended to the Notification of the Govt. of India, erstwhile Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 21/2002-Customs dated 1-3-2002 is entitled to the exemption in terms of the Sl. No. 47(A) of the Notificati....