TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (11) TMI 95
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... obtained permission for repacking and relabelling of the said goods, for the purpose of re-export, from the Drugs Controller (India), New Delhi and Commissioner of Food and Drugs Control Administration, Gujarat State. After repacking and relabelling thereof, the impugned goods were re-exported and duty drawback claims were filed under Section 75 of the Customs Act @ 4.5% on FOB as allowed under S.S. 90.05 of the relevant drawback schedule. On scrutiny, the Drawback department observed that the claim under S.S. No. 90.05 of the said schedule has been fixed only for 'disposable syringes with needles' which as such fall under CTH 9018.31 whereas the re-exported goods fall under CTH 9018.39. Accordingly a query memo was sent to the applicants.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and the same is evident from the examination report on the reverse of the S/B wherein the identity of these goods have not been verified by the Asstt. Commissioner of Customs. The original authority concluded that the said claims were inadmissible both under Section 74 and the Section 75 of the Customs Act. On appeal, the appellate authority upheld the original order. 3.S/Shri Devan Parikh, Advocate, S.N. Padukone and Kamlesh Naik appeared for the applicants for hearing on 26-10-1999 at Camp Ahmedabad. The points raised in the grounds of Revision, oral and written submissions are as follows : (a) The impugned goods are not manufactured in India and are manufactured by only M/s. Novo Nordisk of Denmark. (b) These goods were in compl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e through the written and oral submission, grounds of revision and the documents enclosed with the application. Govt. observes that the impugned goods are manufactured by only one company in the world viz., M/s. Novo Nordisk of Denmark. The said goods at the time of import had a prefix "NOVO" attached to the product name i.e. Novopan, Novofine needles. It is also observed that the discription of these goods on import documents and also on the re-export documents tally. The applicants have submitted that since these goods were to be sent to Russia, it was essential that the same be re-packed and re-labelled in Russian Language. They did not try to hide this fact and in fact had already obtained permission from the Drugs Controller General (I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d above, Government is inclined to agree to the applicants plea that the goods in question are a specific and technical product made by only one manufacturer in the world and there can be no question of substituting the same in any other manner. Govt. also does not find any reason not to believe that the said imported goods only were re-exported. 5.The original authority, in its order, had held that the request application to convert the claim from Section 75 to Section 74 was not submitted within the stipulated time limit. As per Rule 5(1) of the Re-Export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995, the drawback claim has to be filed within 3 months from the date on which an order permitting clearance and loading of good....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to manufacture as envisaged by Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act. Govt. would observe that the Apex Court in its order in the case of Ujagar Prints [1988 (38) E.L.T. 535 (S.C.) and S.D. Fine Chemicals [1995 (77) E.L.T. 49 (S.C.)] has held that one of the main test evolved by the Court is whether on account of the process employed or applied by the assessee, the commodity so obtained is no longer regarded as the original commodity, but is, instead recognised as a distinct and new article that has emerged as a result of the process. In the instant case, after re-packing and re-labelling the impugned goods have remained same i.e. insulin products and even the product's name viz. Novopens and Novofine needles has not changed. 7.Gover....