2025 (2) TMI 255

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....referred to as the Act) in respect of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of life saving drugs as mentioned in the list 3 and 4 of the Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002. For the purpose of manufacture of the said products, the claimant is procuring bulk drugs from various suppliers. Some of the bulk drugs are exempted from duty under the Notification No. 04/2006-CE dated 1/3/2006 and in order to avail the benefit under the ibid notification, the appellant applied to jurisdictional Central Excise authorities in Annexure-45 under the Central Excise (Removal of goods at concessional rate of duty for the manufacture of excisable goods) Rules 2001 and their application was rejected due to the fact that the items Gemcitabine Hydrochloride and Doxorubicin Hydrochloride are not the drugs specified in the list-3 & 4 of the Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002, which forms the base for claiming the exemption under Notification No. 04/2006-CE dated 1/3/2006. Thereafter, the appellant procured the above said inputs on payment of duty and used them as inputs in the manufacture of final products and consequently applied for refund of duty paid on these inputs. 2.2....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d. vs. Comm. Of Central Excise 2020-TIOL-916-CESTAT-CHD affirmed by Supreme Court vide order dt. 10.07.2023. 4.3 She further submits that the refund claim has been rejected merely on the premise that the exemption under the Notification is available only in respect of Gemcitabine and Doxorubicin and not in respect of the Hydrochlorides of the said drugs or medicines, because Gemcitabine Hydrochloride, Doxorubicin Hydrochloride are not specified under List 3 and 4 of the Customs Notification and therefore, bulk drugs procured for manufacturing these products are not entitled to avail the benefit of the exemption. 4.4 She further submits that Notification No. 04/2006-CE dated 1/3/2006 at S.No. 47 grants exemption to various drugs or medicines including their salt and esters, specified in List 3 or 4 appended to the Notification 21/02-Cus dated 01.03.2002. She further submits that Hydrochloride are nothing but salts resulting or regarded as resulting from the reaction of Hydrochloric acid with an organic base (mostly amines). She further submits that this aspect has also been clarified by Circular No. 60/2003-Cus., dated 16-7-2003 which clarifies that exemption under the Customs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....missioner Of C. Ex., Mumbai-l 1999 (113) E.L.T. 292 (Tribunal). 4.8 She further submits that the injections manufactured by the appellant are also manufactured by other competitors which are sold under different brand name and they are also using hydrochlorides for manufacturing of such injections and are availing the benefit of exemption under the Notification but the appellant has been denied the same in spite of that fact was brought to the notice of Deputy Commissioner and has not been disputed by the Deputy Commissioner. She further submits that denial of exemption to the appellant would amount to discrimination which is not permitted under law as held by various courts in the following cases : Mallur Siddeswara Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. Versus C.C.E., Coimbatore 2004 (166) E.L.Τ. 154 (S.C.) Unipatch Rubber Ltd. Versus Commissioner Of Central Excise, Bhopal 2011 (272) E.L.Τ. 340 (S.C.) 4.9 She further submits that the appellant at the time of procurement of bulk drugs has paid the duty and the same was borne by him by the appellant and not passed on to any customer. In proof of the same, the appellant has produced the books of accounts during the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vs CCE and Customs 2005 (181) E.L.T 328 (SC). Memirex & Companyvs CCE Allahabad2004(174)E.L.T 216 (Tri Del). 6. We have considered the submissions made by both the parties and perused the material on record and the judgments relied upon by the both the parties. We find that Notification No. 4/2006-CE dated 01.03.2006 at S.No. 47 grants exemption to various drugs or medicines including their salt and esters, specified in List 3 or 4 appended to the Notification 21/02-Cus dated 01.03.2002. We also find that in the appellant's own case the Ld. Commissioner during the relevant period has held that the appellant is entitled to the exemption provided under the Notification as the same is extendable to the hydrochlorides of the drugs or medicines prescribed under list 3 and 4 of the Customs Notification vide Order in Original No. V(30)15/CE/ADJ/81/2007/296 dated 14.01.2016. 7. We further find that the Commissioner in the said order has specifically held that exemption vide the Notification has also been extended to the hydrochlorides of the drugs or medicines specified and the same is in line with legislative intent. We also find that it is a settled position that the Depar....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (358) ELT 318 (Tri. Mum.) that: 5.1 It is a fact that the appellant had filed price list along with Chartered Accountant's certificate and the same were approved. The assessments were finalised and the RT-12were also approved. In the show cause notice it has been alleged that certain expenses viz., depreciation and financial expenses have not been considered in the assessable value. The appellants have vehemently sought the basis of this assertion by the Revenue. They have also sought the data on the basis of which the said expenses have been quantified, in the second round of litigation also. Revenue has not only failed to provide the same but also refused to provide the same. If a Chartered Accountant's certificate needs to be rejected then there has to be some concrete basis for rejection of the same. Similarly, if any amount needs to be included in assessable value that revenue has to be some concrete basis for quantification of such amount. The same also needs to be communicated to the appellant to enable them to defend their case. In the instant case, revenue has failed to do so. In the absence of any reasonable ground for rejection of the Chartered Accounta....