TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (12) TMI 270
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2019 have been disposed of as abated in terms of Rule 22 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 in the light of NCLT order dated 11 November, 2022 whereby the company has been liquidated. 1.1 The issue on merit involved is the denial of exemption admissibility of Notification No. 12/2012-CE (Sr. No. 108) dated 17.03.2012 in respect of the drugs namely:- 1. Idarubicin hydrochloric acid 2.Doxorubicin hydrochloric acid 3.Daunorubicin hydrochloric acid 4.Epirubicin hydrochloric acid 5.Zoledronic Acid 1.2 The case of the department is that appellant's product is Bulk drug which is covered by description No. (B) of Sr. No. 108 of the table appended to notification, according to which there is a condition that for availing the exemption, the assessee is required to follow the procedure laid down in the Central Excise (removal of goods at concessional rate of duty for manufacture of excisable goods) Rules, 2001 and since the appellant have not followed such condition they are not eligible for exemption. The plea of the appellant is that the appellant's product i.e. drugs covered under description No. (A) of the Sr. No. 108 of the table appended....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....LT 547 (Tri.- Chennai) * Atrix Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CCE & C. Hyadrabad-I 2009 (233) ELT 372 (Tri.-Bang.) * CCE Vs. Ginni Filaments 2005 (181) ELT 145 (SC) * Excon Bldg. Material Mfg. Co. P. Ltd. Vs. CCE 2005 (186) ELT 263 (SC) * CCE Vs. Sunder Steels 2005 (181) ELT 154 (SC) * CCE Vs. Mewar Bartan Nirman (2008) 231 ELT 27 (SC) * CCE Aurangabad Vs. Bajaj Auto Ltd. 2010 (260) ELT 17 (SC) * Goyal Ispat Limited Vs. CCE Puducherry 2017 (6) GSTL 210 (Tri.- Chennai) * Star Industries Vs. CC reported in 2015 (324) ELT 656 (SC); * Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2015 (62) Taxman.com(102) (SC); * Honda Siel Power Products Ltd., reported in 2015 (62) Taxman.com (202) (S.C.); 2.1 He further submits though that the company M/s. Sterlling Biotech Ltd's appeal has been disposed of as abated but they have strong prima facie case on merit. The issue involved is the strict interpretation of the exemption entry, the company M/s. Sterlling Biotech Ltd had been declaring the product description and Notification No. 12/2012-CUS and also the entry Sr. No. 108 in their returns. Therefore, there is no ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 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 description of goods under the relevant entries of the Notification, in terms of the Apex Court's ruling in Gujarat State Fertilisers Co. v. CCE - 1997 (91) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and other cases cited by learned DR. In the result, all the appeals filed against the appellate Commissioner's order on merits are bound to succeed." b) In the case of Hetero Drugs Ltd (Supra), this Tribunal has considering the same issue whether the bulk drug and drug is same or otherwise. The relevant part of the order is reproduced below:- "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 dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st 3 appended to Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1-3-2002. As the impugned goods had been bulk drugs, the appellants were required to follow certain conditions. As they had not followed the prescribed conditions, benefit in terms of Sl. No. 47(B) was denied. The Tribunal held that the items Nevirapine and Stavudine figured in List 3 appended to Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The term 'drug' had to be considered to include bulk drug and formulation, as per the Drugs (Price Control) Rules, both items being bulk drugs were entitled to the benefit of the Notification. 10. In the M/s. Burroughs Wellcome (I) Ltd. case, the Tribunal interpreted the following entries at Sl. No. 43 of Notification No. 11/97 C.E. Sl. No. Chapter or Heading No. or sub-heading No. Description of goods Standard rate Additional duty rate Condition No. 43 28, 29, 30 or 38 The following goods (A) The life saving drugs or medicines (including diagnostic test kits) specified in List 2. Nil Nil -- (B) Bulk drugs used in the manufacture of life saving drugs or medicines at (A) above. Nil -- -- (C) Other life saving dr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....avir' were entitled to benefit of the Notification as prescribed at Sl. No. 47(A) of its table. In the circumstances, we sustain the impugned order and reject the appeal filed by the revenue." Form the above judgments, it is clear that drugs and bulk drugs are one and the same. Therefore, the company M/s. Sterlling Biotech Ltd was entitled for exemption Notification 12/2012-CUS entry Sr. No. 108 description (A) which does not involve any condition such as following the procedure of Central Excise (removal of goods at concessional rate of duty for manufacture of excisable goods) Rules, 2001. Therefore, entire basis of the department that such procedure was not followed is not relevant. Since, the duty demand itself is not prima facie sustainable on the company, there is no question of imposing personal penalty on the employee of M/s. Sterlling Biotech Ltd. who is the appellant herein. 4.2 We further find that the issue involved is pure interpretation of the notification. The company M/s. Sterlling Biotech Ltd had been declaring the entire facts about the availment of the notification and declaring in their ER-1 return the product discretion, notification number, Sr. number of ....