2017 (9) TMI 1468

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he appeal is against the order dated 27.07.2005 of the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Chennai. The appellant imported bulk drug called Micronized Progesterone BPand claimed benefit of concessional rate of duty under Sl.No. 80 (A) of the Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002. The Revenue contended that the appellants are not eligible for such concession and the product should be treated f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ddys Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CCE, Hyderabad 2010 (251) ELT 447 (Tri.-Bang) 3. Ld. AR for the Revenue opposed the appeal. He submitted that the goods imported by the appellants are in bulk form and they are not intended for retail sale. 4. We have heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 5. The dispute is between two entries as mentioned below:- 80 28,29 or 30 The following goods namely....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g bulk, the Revenue contends that it should be under 80 (B). We note that the impugned goods covered by Sl.No. 58 of List 3 is specifically covered under 80 (A). In a similar set of facts, the Tribunal while interpreting identical entries for claim of concession, in the case of CIPLA Ltd. (supra) observed as below:- "5. In the instant case, admittedly, the bulk drugs imported by the appellants w....